Point of Law: Service Law - Adverse remarks - Annual Performance Assessment Report - Representation against adverse remarks rejected in Rajasthan and New Delhi - Present Court doesn’t have territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner, in this petition, is essentially aggrieved by the adverse remarks recorded by the Initiating Officer in his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) from 16.05.2016 to 31.03.2017 (the relevant period). The petitioner is also aggrieved and has challenged orders dated 18.05.2019, 02.11.2018 and 25.01.2019, whereby representations filed by the petitioner on 30th of August, 2017, 19th of July, 2018 and 14th of November, 2018, to upgrade the grading and to expunge the remarks, have been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner also seeks a command to the respondents to upgrade his APARS and to expunge the adverse remarks recorded by the Initiating Officer for the relevant period.

2. Briefly put, the facts narrated by the petitioner, as a precursor to the challenge to the impugned orders, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commandant (direct) on 11th of December, 2012 and was made to undergo Basic Officers Training at BSF Academy, Takenpur. Upon successful completion of the training, he was given the first posting in 5th Bn. Dantewada, Gujarat. As a Company Commander, the petitioner came to be deployed at different places including Border Outpost in vulnerable areas of Rann of Kutch. He also came to be posted in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for a brief period where he led his company during Assembly Elections in the year 2014.

3. In the year 2015, to be precise, in the month of May, 2015, the petitioner availed 13 days earned leave to proceed to his home town. The petitioner developed symptoms relating to anxiety depression, as a result, his medical condition deteriorated. He was given treatment in SKIMS, Srinagar, as well as Composite Hospital, Srinagar. Because of his ailment, the petitioner was forced to overstay his earned leave. Accordingly, a request was made to the Company Commandant at Dantewada, Gujarat, for extension of his leave.

4. The petitioner after availing the sanctioned leave on medical grounds, resumed his duties and on joining, the petitioner was asked to explain his leave of absence which the petitioner did satisfactorily supported by medical prescriptions. The petitioner was, however, placed in Low Medical Category (SHAPE-II) and was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad in the month of July, 2015. The doctors at Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad assessed the petitioner and concluded on 20th of July, 2015, that he was suffering from anxiety depression and, accordingly, the petitioner was placed in SHAPE-II category.

5. The petitioner was re-examined by Head of the Department Psychiatry of Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad, in the month of March, 2016. It was found that the petitioner was not showing any symptoms of anxiety and depression as earlier and was completely fit to resume his duties with firearms. The petitioner was also recommended for upgradation to medical category SHAPE-I. It is submitted that despite there being categoric opinion of the Psychiatrist of Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad, the Medical Board constituted by the respondents for upgradation of the petitioner's medical category rejected the opinion of the Psychiatrist and kept the petitioner in SHAPE-II medical category. The petitioner was re-assessed in the month of September, 2016, first by the Psychiatrist at Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad and then by the Medical Board constituted by the respondents at Amritsar Punjab and on the basis of medical opinion, upgraded to category SHAPE-I.

6. It is claimed that the petitioner despite his medical condition performed the work and tasks entrusted to him with all devotion, sincerity and to the best of his ability. The petitioner has, in some detail, narrated his so-called exemplary services which he claims to have rendered during the relevant period to the satisfaction of his superiors.

7. It is submitted by the petitioner that while he was in Amritsar, he visited local market on 9th of January, 2019, for buying some essentials when a mishap t