Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The petitioner, a regular Commandant in CISF, who was decorated with the President Police Medal for his meritorious service in the year 2007 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 17th February 2011 passed by Respondent No.2 whereby his representation dated 2nd August 2010 seeking expunction of his “Average” grading and up-gradation of the same to “Very Good” in the ACR/APAR of the year 2008-2009, was rejected. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to hold a Review DPC for his promotion from the post of Commandant to Senior Commandant from the date when his immediate juniors were promoted to such higher post on regular basis, along with grant of all consequential reliefs and allowances etc.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the CISF as a Special Officer in the year 1975. Based on his exemplary service record, he earned promotions to higher ranks from time to time along-with his batch mates. The last promotion earned by the petitioner was that of a regular Commandant in CISF with effect from 1.2.2006. In the year 2008, the petitioner was transferred from CISF, Eastern Zone, Head Quarters, Patna, Bihar to CISF Unit, Amritsar Punjab and was posted as Chief Airport Security Officer, Amritsar Airport on 13th June 2008. In March 2009, the petitioner was transferred from Amritsar Airport to the office of Director General, CISF, New Delhi on the post of Assistant Inspector General (Operations). While being posted as Assistant Inspector General (Operations), he was communicated his APAR (ACR for the year 2008-2009). In this ACR, the Reporting Officer had assessed him as ‘Very Good’; however, the Reviewing Authority not agreeing with the assessment of the Reporting Officer downgraded the petitioner to ‘Average’ grade which was also endorsed by the Accepting Officer. This ACR of the petitioner for the year 2008-2009 is at the heart of the controversy in the present matter.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in his self appraisal report, he had clearly stated that all the targets which were fixed by the Reporting Officer during the period when his ACRs were drawn, were duly achieved by him therefore, there was no shortfall of any kind on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that there were other significant achievements which were duly mentioned by him in the relevant columns of the said ACR form. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Reporting Officer had fully agreed with the targets, objectives which were achieved by the petitioner and in fact on an objective analysis of the performance of the petitioner, the Reporting Officer graded him as ‘Very Good’. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Reviewing Officer without giving any weightage to the grading as assessed by the Reporting Officer downgraded him, by rating him as ‘Average’. As averred by the petitioner, no reasons whatsoever were disclosed by the Reviewing Officer to demonstrate his disagreement with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer or any other justification to lower down the grading of the petitioner straightaway to ‘Average’.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that there existed no adverse material of any kind which could necessitate overruling of remarks made by the Reporting Officer by the Reviewing Officer; that in Para (iv) of the ACR in question, the only reason given by the Reviewing Officer was that the petitioner had to be removed on administrative grounds and therefore, his work and conduct can be categorised as just ‘Average’. As per the petitioner, this observation of the Reviewing Authority is arbitrary, lacks cogent basis and is a view which no reasonable person of prudence can justify because it is unfounded and unsupported by any record or evidence. It is also the case of the petitioner that in fact he had complet