IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Ravindra Prasad

Commandant, RTC

Central Reserve Police Force

Avadi, Chennai-600 065. ... Petitioner

vs.

1. The Union of India

Through its Secretary

Ministry of Home, New Delhi

Office at North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force

Office at C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi – 110 003.

3. The Inspector General (Pers)

Office at Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi – 110 003.

4. The Deputy Inspector General (Pers)

CRPF, Office at Directorate General,

Central Reserve Police Force

C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi – 110 003.

5. The Deputy Inspector General (Principal)

Recruit Training Centre, Central Reserve Police Force Avadi, Chennai-600 065.

6. Mr.Rajiv Chowdhary Commandant 156 Bn Central Reserve Police Force Assam. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in No.VII-4/2012-Pers- DA-1 dated 22.11.2012 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to promote the petitioner as Commandant with effect from 25.10.2012 and to pay all monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Senior Panel counsel for R1 R2 to R5 – Served – NA R6 – Dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2017 *****

O R D E R

The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion to the rank of Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Second-in-Commandant, was imposed with a punishment of displeasure for having remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of ten days. Although the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Commandant for the year 2012, his case was not considered on the ground that there was an adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2007–2008. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected, which necessitated the filing of the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent authority had merely conveyed displeasure against the petitioner for the said unauthorised absence and that such displeasure does not amount to a penalty under the applicable service rules. It was contended that the same cannot operate as a bar for consideration for promotion. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training. The learned counsel further submitted that the denial of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Commandant from the year 2012 is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that there was an adverse remark in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2007–2008 and therefore, the said adverse remark constituted a valid bar for consideration of promotion to the post of Commandant. It was further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim was justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. The learned counsel also contended that adverse remarks cannot ordinarily be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6498 of

2003 (Ajit Kumar v. Union of India and another)

5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record have been duly considered.

6. The Director General, CRPF, by order dated 30.10.2009, held that the acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner warranted stern disciplinary action; howeve