IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.3468 of 2018

Vishal Kumar Pandey

..

Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Director General of BSF

Border Security Force

CGO Complex

Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003

2. The Deputy Inspector General

Border Security Force

Sector Headquarters

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Village Keerapakkam

Post Nallampakkam

Teh-Chengalpattu

District Kancheepuram

Chennai 600 127

3. Shri Narayan Chand

(Then Commandant 118^th Battalion, BSF)

..

Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to

call for the records from the second respondent relating to the

impugned order issued by second respondent in No.PA/APAR-

SOS/SHQ-CHEN/2016/9589-90 dated 19.08.2016 and quash the same so

far as it relates to the petitioner and consequently direct the

second respondent so that he may reconsider the petitioner's

representation dated 30.1.2016 for expunction of adverse remark

in APAR and also consider the petitioner's entitlement for

promotion with effect from the date of promotion as per his

seniority with all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner :: Mr.Vivek Kumar Srivastava

For Respondents:: Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, Sr.Panel Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed questioning the

correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General

of Border Security Force, Chennai dated 19.8.2016 returning the

representation of the petitioner seeking to enpunge the remark

of 'reprimand', being an adverse remark from his ACR for the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

period 2014-15. Since the petitioner was keeping off without

any sufficient cause for most of the months, he has been awarded

with 'reprimand' by order dated 25.6.2015. As per the rules,

the petitioner should have preferred the appeal/representation

before the competent authority within one month, which he has

not done so. However, with a delay, he made his

representation/appeal against the remark and grading to the

Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, Border Security Force, Chennai on

30.1.2016 after a huge delay. Since the petitioner failed to

respond to the adverse remark of 'reprimand' within the time

limit and only after a huge delay of four months, he has

represented against the adverse remarks and final grading

endorsed in his APAR 2014-15, which is against the Rule position

enumerated by DOP&T at Para Fir.4.17 of APAR procedure and

instructions, 2012, the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, Border

Security Force, has returned the representation/appeal by the

impugned order, as a result he has come to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

although the petitioner suffered the adverse remark of

'reprimand' on 25.6.2015, which was communicated to him on

10.8.2015, he was unable to make the representation within the

time. Moreover, he met with an accident on 3.4.2014, as an auto

pushed his bike from behind, he had to consult the doctor in the

nearby hospital and was taking treatment. That was the reason

why he was unable to report for duty. This fact was also

properly brought to the Commandant of 118^th Battalion, BSF in his

communication dated 5.4.2014. Therefore, the adverse remark of

'reprimand' put against the petitioner is required to be

expunged, he pleaded.

3. It may be true that the petitioner met with an accident

on 3.4.2014, which prevented the petitioner from attending his

duties. But when he suffered the adverse remark of 'reprimand'

vide order dated 25.6.2015, which was communicated to him on

10.8.2015, as per the provision, he was given only a month's

time to make the representation. But he has miserably failed to

make any representation within the said period of one month. A