S.C. Puri vs Union Of India And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1892 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the reports of the R.O., T.O. and S.R.O. in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1979-80 and the Interim Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1981 as void and also for quashing of the orders dated December 14, 1984 and February 18, 1991, whereby the statutory complaints filed by the petitioner were rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Lt. Col. (Section Grade) with retrospective benefits due since August, 1981.

2. The petitioner was commissioned in Army Service Corps as a 2/Lt on June 27, 1965. During his service career, the petitioner earned several promotions and somewhere around the year 1980-81, the petitioner was due for his promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade). The Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1979-80 was recorded by the Initiating Officer. After recording of the assessment of the petitioner by the Initiating Officer, the same was forwarded to the Reviewing Officer, who also recorded his assessment. As the case of the petitioner came within the zone of consideration for his promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade), an Interim Confidential Report of the petitioner was also prepared by the respondents for the period from June, 1980 to February, 1981 in respect of which the Initiating Officer recorded his assessment after which it was placed before the Reviewing Officer, who also recorded his assessment. However, as adverse remarks came to be entered into both the aforesaid Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner, the same were communicated to him on receipt of which the petitioner submitted statutory complaint dated August 2, 1980 against the Initiating Officer's assessment in the Annual Confidential Report 1979-80 which was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated March 13, 1981. The aforesaid statutory complaint filed by the petitioner was considered by the then GOC-in-C, Northern Command, who after going through the contents of the statutory complaint and the records of the petitioner including the Annual Confidential Reports directed that the entire assessment of the Initiating Officer in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979-80 be expunged. While expressing the aforesaid opinion, so far the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979-80 of the petitioner is concerned, he held that only the Initiating Officer's assessment deserves expunction as the assessment of other Reviewing Officers is independent of the assessment by the Initiating Officer and hence the said assessment was not affected by the Initiating Officer's assessment.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the entire assessment of the Initiating Officer in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1979-80 was expunged while retaining the assessment of the other Reviewing Officers which were held by the competent authority as independent of the assessment by the Initiating Officer. As against the assessment in the Interim Confidential Report for the period from June, 1980 to February, 1981, the competent authority held by his order dated 26th November, 1981 that the entire Interim Confidential Report of the petitioner itself be set aside pursuant to which assessment by the Initiating Officer as also by the other Reviewing Officers were set aside and quashed on the ground that the said assessment by the other Reviewing Officers were dependent on the assessment of the Initiating Officer. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade) by the duly constituted Selection Boards and he was assessed by the Committee in the following manner:-

S. NO. CASE/ DATE OF CUT- GRADING REMARKS TYPE SELECTION OFF BOARD CR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Fresh Aug 81 79/80 R(Unfit) Reserved to defer by COAS in Dec 1982.

(b)  Fresh   Dec 83    81/82  R(Unfit)     -

(c)  First   Feb 85    6/83-  R(Unfit)     -
  Review       12/83

(d)  Final   May 90     2/89-  R(Unfit)      -
  Review      5/89 

 

4. It is disclosed from the records that the aforesaid consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee was without the Initiating Officer's assessment in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979-80 and entire assessment in the Interim Confidential Report for the period from June, 1980 to February, 1981. The petitioner was later on involved in disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, he was not entitled to any Annual Confidential Report during the period from December, 1983 to May, 1988. The petitioner was considered as a fresh case in August, 1981 and again in the month of December, 1983 and thereafter was considered as First Review case in February, 1985 and on all the aforesaid three occasions, he was graded unfit for promotion. A final review was also done in the month of May, 1988 wherein also the petitioner was found to be unfit for promotion. The statutory complaint filed by the petitioner on March 20, 1984 against his supersession for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. by selection was also examined by the appropriate competent authority and the same was rejected by the Central Government.

5. Now, the question that is posed in this writ petition is that when the entire assessment in the Interim Confidential Report, namely that of Initiating Officer and other Reviewing Officers were expunged by the competent authority was it or was it not necessary to expunge the remarks of the other Reviewing Officers in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979-80. In case it is found that the aforesaid assessment by the other Reviewing Officers in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1979-80 is quashed, necessarily, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade) is required to be re-considered by convening a review D.P.C. as the said report was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee while considering the case of the petitioner for such promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade), which was one of the factors for finding the petitioner unfit for promotion.

6. In order to appreciate the contention of the counsel appearing for the parties, I have looked into the original records placed before me which contain the aforesaid assessment of the petitioner by the other Reviewing Officers for the year 1979-80. So far the recording of the adverse remarks by the Initiating Officer in the Annual Confidential Report of the year 1979-80 and the adverse remarks recorded both by the Initiating Officer as also by the other Reviewing Officers in the Interim Confidential Report for the period from June, 1980 to February, 1981 is concerned, the same has been expunged under orders of the competent authority. I have looked into the assessment made by the Reviewing Officer in the report for the year 1979-80. I find from perusal of the said report of assessment that the remarks recorded by the said Officer is independent from that of the Initiating Officer. A careful perusal of the same would indicate that the Reviewing Officer has recorded his own impression of the concerned Officer without in any manner being influenced by what was recorded by the Initiating Officer.

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to submit during his submissions that the petitioner was unknown to the Reviewing Officer and had never met him. The said plea cannot be accepted as the records indicate that the Reviewing Officer knew the petitioner and was acquainted not only with the performance of the petitioner but even with his physical condition. Such assessment of the performance of the petitioner by the Reviewing Officer being independent of the remarks of the Initiating Officer and not being in any manner dependent on the said remarks of the Initiating Officer were not ordered to be expunged from the records by the competent authority as the same was independent. The aforesaid assessment and the satisfaction of the Reviewing Officer and of the GOC-in-C cannot be in any manner said to be arbitrary and irrational. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Court over the assessment made by the Reviewing Officers as also of the satisfaction of the GOC-in-C in coming to the conclusion that the remarks of the Reviewing Officer are independent from that of the remarks recorded by the Initiating Officer and cannot substitute the said satisfaction by recording a finding contrary to the aforesaid satisfaction.

8. The petitioner had adverse remarks during the period 1979-80 and, therefore, he was found to be unfit for promotion as delineated hereinabove. As the petitioner had adverse remarks for the period which was under consideration for his further promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade), no infirmity is found in the decision of the respondents holding the petitioner unfit for promotion. The petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of.