The Accepting Authority's remark should be final only in the event of conflicting remarks between the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer, and any deviation from this principle cannot be accepted in the present framework of writing ACRs.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the grading awarded to the petitioner for the year 2003-04 which was made known to the petitioner after about 8 years by the communication dated 09.07.2011. The grading which was awarded to the petitioner is ‘Good’ but such grading is below the bench mark for promotion to the next grade.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as the Medical Officer in the Border Security Force, (in short ‘BSF’) on 09.05.1988. In the course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer on 10.10.1992 in the rank of the Deputy Commandant in the BSF. Thereafter, he was again promoted to the post of the Chief Medical Officer with effect from 09.05.1999. The petitioner has asserted that both the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer have awarded him 79 marks out of 100 for the said year. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded “Very Good” in Part (VIII) in the Annual Confidential Reports. The following observation has been recorded by the Senior Technical Officer :

“He is a sincere, dedicated, hardworking CMO who possesses very good professional knowledge. He is having very good clinical judgment and good art of patient’s care. He maintained unit hospital very nicely and took very keen interest in patient’s health care. Grade- “Very Good”.

3. Thereafter, the IG/Director (Med) HQ DG BSF MHA made the following remark “Professionally Very Good, CMO” the Reviewing Officer (DIG) also made the remark in respect of the petitioner as “Very Good Doctor”.

4. The respondent No.7, at the relevant point of time, was holding the post of Inspector General, BSF, as the Accepting Authority differred with the remarks made by the Initiating Officer/Reporting Officer as well as by the Reviewing Officer under whom petitioner had served directly. The Accepting Authority entered the following remark in the ACR of the said assessment year (2003-04)

“I do not agree with the above. Seen his work closely during visits and other interactions, noted “Good”.”

5. Having received the said communication dated 19.07.2011 Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on 08.08.2011, the petitioner submitted a representation for upgrading from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’ for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 on the basis of the remarks given by the Reporting, Reviewing, Technical and Senior Technical Officers. The said representation dated 08.08.2011, Annexure -2 to the writ petition was not acceded to and the grading as awarded was maintained by the order dated 09.11.2011, Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

6. According to the petitioner, the said order dated 09.11.2011 is entirely a non-speaking order without any substance or reason. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2, the Director General BSF on 02.02.2012, Annexure- 5 to the writ petition. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that a further representation could not be entertained, by the communication dated 20.03.2012, Annexure-/6 to the writ petition. The petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade(SAG) on completion of 20 years of service of regular service in the BSF.

7. From 09.05.2008 to the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has completed 24 years of service in the BSF. The petitioner has apprehended that for the said grading, he would be prejudicially affected and deprived of the promotional benefit. It has been further asserted that the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer made their comment in due time in the year 2004 whereas the respondent No.7 had written his impugned remark thereafter, but when the same was written is not available in the report. The petitioner has categorically stated in the Para-12 of the writ petition as under:

“The Respondent No.7 in his capacity as Inspector General of BSF Battalion once in two years and to make one casual visit each year and as such there was no occasion to see the work of the petitioner closely or to