$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on : 09.07.2015

+

W.P.(C) 2825/2012, C.M. NO.11/2013

ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA

..... Petitioner

Through : Sh. Sreenivasa Rao. K, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through : Sh. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

%

1. The petitioner’s complaint is that his Annual Confidential Report

(ACR) grading for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 was wrongly

recorded by the then Reporting Officer, i.e. the third respondent Sh. Ishwar

Singh Duhan, who held the rank of Commandant, and that he was actuated

by malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading, recorded and

affirmed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer.. He seeks

appropriate directions for the quashing of such ACR.

2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, an Assistant Commandant.

He had joined that post in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on

25.10.1997. During the period 2004 onwards he was posted as an Assistant

Commandant in the 18^th Batallion of ITBP. The third respondent was his

2015:DHC:5389-DB

superior officer, i.e. the Commandant. It is stated by the petitioner that on

31.10.2005, he wrote to the DIG, Sector Headquarters at Himachal Pradesh,

bringing to light serious irregularities on account of practices of the third

respondent. This apparently led to issuance of warning/advisory on

12.01.2006 when the ITBP found the complaint to be substantiated. A copy

of the said letter – addressed to the third respondent/Commandant has been

placed on the record. It is submitted that in these circumstances, when the

third respondent initiated and wrote ACR for the period he was petitioner’s

superior officer, he intentionally graded him to be “below average” to his

detriment. The petitioner’s representation against the said below benchmark

grading was not heeded – the Reporting and Reviewing Officers rejected his

requests. It is further submitted that the petitioner complained to the

Chairman, National Commission for the Scheduled Castes (hereafter “the

Commission”) on 15.02.2007, stating that the adverse remarks recorded by

the third respondent were motivated and, therefore, should be expunged. The

petitioner in this regard relies upon the said Commission’s view on

01.09.2011 to the effect that the allegations levelled by him were true. In

other words, the Commission required the ITBP to expunge the adverse

remarks. It is in these circumstances that this petitioner has approached this

Court for relief.

3. The respondents contend that the ACR grading was correctly

recorded. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner

was issued with a warning on account of lapse and deficiency in his

discharge of duties on 18.10.2005 and that he consequently complained

against the Commandant later. The respondents further submit that the

petitioner is a habitual trouble-maker and has addressed several complaints

2015:DHC:5389-DB

against different officers; most of which, if not all, were unsubstantiated and

frivolous. Learned counsel has relied upon a document detailing each

complaint levelled and the comments received from the respondents in that

regard. He, therefore, urges that the present petition is devoid of merit and

that the allegation of bias deserves to be rejected.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner

relies upon a letter dated 12.01.2006 which in substance encapsulates the

advisories and directions by the superior authorities to the third respondent,

who, at the relevant time between April and October 2005 was the

petitioner’s superior officer and, therefore, entitled to initiate his ACRs. The

petitioner had levelled about 11 allegations in his letter dated 31.10.2005.

The respondents found that 7 of those allegations were correct and