Delhi High Court
R.S.Khatri vs Uoi & Ors. on 22 December, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 22nd December, 2009
+ W.P.(C) 6392/2008
R.S.KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Ankur
Chibber, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Rule. D.B.
2. Heard for disposal.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse remarks
communicated to him under cover of letter dated 31.12.2007
for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
4. At the outset, we may note that the adverse remarks
communicated to the petitioner have not been filed by the
petitioner with the writ petition. But, with reference to the
record produced by the respondents, we have perused the
same.
5. The adverse comments for the year 2004-05 were:-
"having scope of achieving required standard of
professionalism involved indiscipline/fraud case
in his Coy which shows adverse reflection of his
personality."
6. The adverse remarks communicated for the year 2005-
06 were :-
"officer has discharged his duties as Coy
Comdr., which was just satisfactory as a result
he was issued warning letter by I.G. and D.I.G."
7. The petitioner submitted a response to the adverse
entries communicated. The response was considered and the
petitioner was informed that the ACR gradings are being
maintained and that the adverse remarks would not be
expunged from his ACR record.
8. The rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide
letter dated 08.07.2007.
9. We note that inspite of opportunity granted to the
petitioner, rejoinder affidavit has not been filed to the counter
affidavit. We note that the petitioner has alleged mala fide
against his Commandant in recording the adverse entries in
his ACR gradings.
10. Record of the respondents shows that the Commandant
was the Initiating Officer. The D.I.G. was Reviewing-cum-
Accepting Officer and as a Reviewing-cum-Accepting Officer
the D.I.G. has concurred with the ACR grading and the remarks
given by the Initiating Officer.
11. In para 2 of the counter affidavit while replying the para
2 of the writ petition the response of the respondents is as
under:-
"Para 2. Contents of para 2 are wrong and denied. It
is submitted that the petitioner was serving in 47 Bn.
BSF under the command of Shri Sanjay Shiva. The
allegations leveled by the petitioner against
Commandant are not justified. If the petitioner was
pressurized by the Commandant to obey his illegal
orders, he should have brought these facts to the
notice of his senior officer i.e. DIG/IG. The petitioner
has made story of blank receipt for Rs. 800/- to cover
up his indiscipline act and to divert the attention of
senior officers from his lack of competency/professional
knowledge. This matter has nothing to do with
recording of adverse remark in his ACR. His
performance was not only evaluated by his
Commandant but also assessed by the DIG BSF who
has also concurred with the remarks of Initiating
Officer. The representations regarding adverse
remarks endorsed in the ACR of petitioner were
carefully and thoroughly examined by concerned IG
and rejected being devoid of merits. The petitioner
could not justify his allegations against his
Commandant as such all his averments, allegations are
false hence denied. It seems that petitioner is habitual
in leveling allegations against his superiors. Moreover,
the petitioner was also found blameworthy during
Court of Inquiry conducted for various irregularities in
Coy under his command. For this act of indiscipline
and irregularity he was issued advice from DG BSF, IG's
displeasure, warning from DIG and Unit Commandant.
The details of which are as under:-
On 5th DG's advice For exerting
January, extraneous pressure
2005 through numerous
sources for posting to
Delhi during 2004-05.
On 11th Unit For creating Faux pas
April, 2005 Commandant's atmosphere in the
Warning Unit by passing
information to Unit
Adjutant that Shri R.S.
Khatri, AC had died.
On 6th May, Unit For Indulging in
2005 Commandnat's writing baseless
Warning allegations during
2004-05.
On 20th IG's Warning For committing an
May, 2005 offence U/s 30(a). 30
(f) and 40 of BSF Act,
1968 during 2004-05.
On 20th DIG's Warning For creating hurdles in
May, 2005 smooth functioning of
unit affairs and
leveling false
allegations during
2004-05.
On 23rd IG's displeasure Found blameworthy
Dec. 2005 for irregularities
occurred in his Coy
during 2004-05.
Cutting of trees on
border, irregular
purchase without
approval of
Competent Authority
and illegal
procurement of Table
and Chairs.
This shows that petitioner has leveled allegation against
his superiors to cover up his act of indiscipline and
misappropriation. Hence all allegations leveled against
the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner are false hence
denied, as these could not be sustained by the
petitioner."
12. Suffice would it be to state that the warnings, displeasure
and advice given to the petitioner is not only by the
Commandant but even by the DIG as well as the IG.
13. No mala fides have been alleged against the DIG and the
IG.
14. The personal record of the petitioner shows that the
warnings, displeasure and the advice communicated to the
petitioner from time to time is with reference to specific
incidents.
15. It is settled law that a writ Court cannot rewrite the ACR
gradings. The domain of the Court is to ensure that the ACR
gradings recorded are with transparency and if adverse are
supported by recording of specific incidents.
16. Noting that the ACR gradings and adverse remarks
communicated to the petitioner are with reference to specific
incidents, we dismiss the writ petition.
17. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
DECEMBER 22, 2009
'mr'
