Delhi High Court
Subedar (Clk) Gopinath Rout, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through Its ... on 18 February, 2003
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain, B Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the ACR for the year 1995 and Initiating Officer grading portion of the ACR for the year 1996 as well as quashing the direction of the Chief of Army Staff dated 3.11.2000 rejecting the statutory complaint dated 13.7.1999 of the petitioner and to consider the petitioner as per rules for grant of promotion to the rank of Subedar Major by a special DPC maintaining his original seniority with all consequential benefits.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On 3rd February, 2003, this Court passed the following order :
"Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the ACR of the petitioner has been fuzzed after the grading by the Initiating Officer. We have perused the original ACR for the period of 1994-95. Originally it seems following grading was given :-
a) Professional Competence (The practical knowledge and ability to apply the same to various situations to find practical solutions to problems).
b) Integrity (Honesty trust worthiness and maintenance of high sense of values)
c) Self Discipline and Personal Example (Self discipline, obedience of orders, soldierly conduct both on end off parade including turnout especially when not under supervision, uprightness and personal example)
d) Maturity (Can handle situations deliberately and deals with people with tact in a sober and dignified way).
e) Courage of Conviction (Conveys his point of view and acts in the interest of unit without hesitation).
f) Initiative (Can without hesitation take decisions and initiate action in absence of specific orders and accept responsibilities for such actions).
g) Dependability (Has the ability and dedication to get things done without further guidance and supervision).
h) Command, Control and Supervision (Immediately assumes effective command of a group of men, given clear orders, allots tasks and supervises the same to achieve maximum efficiency).
i) Ability to train subordinates (Can impart effective instructions in any subject of his trade and helps the men in developing their soldierly professional skill).
j) Administrative Ability and Interior Economy (Takes interest in looking after his men, equipment, stores, clothing, buildings and other resources. Knows how to check and account for them and does so effectively).
k) Man-Management (Intimate knowledge about his men, understands human nature and problems of his men handles them in various situations so as to keep them motivated in the interest of unit).
l) Sports and Games (Takes interest in organization of games and readily participates personally).
m) Potential for Growth and Development (has the JCO potential to become a Sub Maj within the Regt/Corps. (Applicable both for Nb/ASub and Sub) Grade him as per other qualities in the ACR.)
3. We observed that the Initiating Officer has fuzzed the petitioner's ACR for the period of 1994-95 by reducing professional competence from 9 to 7, self discipline and personal example from 9 to 7, maturity from 9 to 7, courage of conviction from 7 to 5, initiative from 9 to 7, ability to train subordinates from 9 to 7, administrative ability and interior economy from 9 to 7, man management from 9 to 7, sports and games from 7 to 5 and potential for growth and development from 9 to 7; and increasing integrity from 7 to 9, dependability from 7 to 9. It was contended that said alteration has been done without recording any reasons and without appending full signature and same has been done after Reviewing Officer given its grading against different heads.
4. Thereafter the remarks of Mr. J.R. Ghalhotra, Initiating Officer assumes greater significance which read as under:
"A smart, honest, disciplined and dedicated JCO clerk, who is humble, sincere and quiet by nature. He is extremely hardworking and keeps his duty above all, regardless to his own and family comforts. He is dependable and can withstand stress and strain cheerfully. His integrity is above board. A JCO with tremendous tolerance and has dealt with all sensitive subjects and officiated as Head Clerk. He is cooperative and asset to the branch. He will be an efficient Sub Head Clerk and can make the grade for SL His overall performances have been above average."
5. In view of the records perused by us, we have no hesitation that after the Reviewing officer's marks, the Initiating Officer has fuzzed the ACR. Fuzzing of the ACR by the Initiating Officer, was highly improper. After all there is some sanctity to the marks given by the Initiating Officer, Reviewing Officer and the Senior Reviewing Officer. And if after giving of the marks by the Reviewing Officer or Senior Reviewing Officer, the grading is fuzzed in the manner as it has been demonstrated before us, there will be no sanctity to the maintenance of ACR. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that for the year 1996, Initiating Officer has given following marks under different heads, viz, '9' under the headings 'Personal Competence', 'Integrity', 'Self Discipline', 'Dependability', 'Administrative Ability', 'Man Management' and 'Potential for Growth & Development', whereas for 'Maturity', 'Courage of conviction', 'Initiative', 'Command & Control and Supervision', 'Ability to train subordinates' and 'Sports & Games', he had given '7' marks. The total thereof comes to 105. If 105 is divided by 13 heads, the average comes to 8.08 marks. From the perusal of the dossier of the petitioner, which was placed before the DPC for the year 1996, the marks by Initiating Officer are reflected as '7'. More so, after perusing of the original records, we have seen that the Senior Reviewing Officer has also given '9' marks to the petitioner, whereas that Column has been left blank in the overall profile of the petitioner, which was submitted to the DPC. Such serious lapses when the marking of the SRO had not been reflected in the DPC and the grading given by the Initiating Officer for the year 1996 has not been correctly reflected in the overall profile of the petitioner, the same ought to have been rectified at the level of the respondent while dealing with the statutory complaint of the petitioner.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that petitioner has not been given marks for the posting in the field area from 1986-89. Counsel for the respondent says that no instructions have been received by her in this regard. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that with regard to field service performed by the petitioner as per page 26 of the paper-book from November 1986 to February, 1989 in Head Quarter 64 Mtn. Bde, no points have been given in this regard.
7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we quash the marking of ACR by Initiating Officer for 1994-95 and we direct the respondent to correctly reflect the marking of the IO as well as SRO in the ACR for the year 1996. A direction is also issued to the respondent to constitute a special DPC after doing the above and consider the petitioner afresh for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. Respondents are directed to take the above stated field service of the petitioner into consideration at the time of considering his case for promotion.
8. If the petitioner gets promoted, he will get four more years to serve with the respondent. Therefore, the interim order passed on 19.12.2002 is extended till the result of the DPC is announced by the respondent.
9. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
