ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. G.II-1/2001-CRC dated 24.09.2001 issued under the Signature of Additional Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel-I) Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been communicated adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. Further prayer has been made for quashing the consequent order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force-respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner’s representation against the said adverse remarks has been summarily rejected without assigning any cogent reason or without going through the materials available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Commandant, 10th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 121st Battalion at HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, when he received the letter dated 24th September 2001 issued by the respondent no. 3, wherein adverse entries were recorded in his ACR for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. The said entries read as under:

(i) You absented from performing operations duties on medical and other pretext.

(ii) Has become a liability to the force.

(iii) Work and Conduct below average.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 19.11.2001 before the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force- respondent no. 2 against the aforesaid communication of adverse remarks, however, the same was summarily rejected vide order dated 4.10.2002. Thereafter, he moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2068 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2009, setting aside the order dated 04.10.2002 and directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. Subsequently, his representati

on was re-considered by the respondent no. 2, however, the same was again rejected vide order dated 17.03.2010 in a most arbitrary manner without applying its mind.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner again filed a representation on 10.05.2010 before the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi which was also rejected and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 19.01.2011 issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General (CR & VIG), New Delhi. He again represented the respondent no. 2 on 16.5.2012, which was also rejected and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 03.07.2012. The petitioner came to know the reasons for recording adverse remarks in his ACR for the first time when his representation was disallowed by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 4.10.2002. It was recorded in his ACR that the petitioner was always reluctant to perform operational duties and he was often away from Detachment Headquarters at Kashmir Valley on the pretext of illness, visiting unit headquarters at Kolkata and attending departmental enquiry pending against him.

5. It is further contended that the Initiating Officer or the Reviewing Officer of the petitioner did not put any comment against the petitioner and, therefore, it appears that the communication of the adverse remarks was a premeditated exercise with vested interests to jeopardize the future prospects of the petitioner. The petitioner was posted at Baramula in Jammu & Kashmir during the period 1999-2000 when he was actively involved in the operation against insurgency and during that time, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide memo dated 20.07.2000 for allegedly domesticating some livestock at his official residence while he was posted at Kokrajhar in Assam and in the said departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer was the DIGP, CRPF, New Delhi. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Baramula which was his operational headquarter whereas his depa