Molar Ram Sharma ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2019 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision: 23.03.2012

+                        W.P.(C) No.380/2000

Molar Ram Sharma (Asst.Commandant)               ...      Petitioner

                                 Versus

Union of India & Ors.                             ...     Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner       :     Mr.M.G.Kapoor.
For Respondent           :     Ms.Barkha Babbar with Mr.Bhupinder
                               Sharma, Commandant, BSF.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying, inter-alia,

that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner in his ACR for the year

1995-96 be expunged and that he should be considered afresh for

promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant and be treated as the

officers of his own batch by retaining his original seniority with all the

consequential benefits. The petitioner has further sought to initiate an

independent enquiry against respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 for acting in

concert to the detriment of the petitioner and to punish them if they are

found guilty. The petitioner has also prayed for the compensation of

Rs.10 lakhs due to the harassment, agony and loss of reputation

suffered by the petitioner on facing false and fabricated criminal

charges levelled against him out of ill will and malafides, which were

allegedly subsequently found to be without any substance and were

also dismissed.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was

enrolled in the Punjab Armed Police (PAP) on 1st September, 1965 which

was later on converted to BSF (Border Security Force) in March, 1966.

The petitioner was thereafter, posted to the 57th Battalion B.S.F located

first at Fazika and later at Dera Baba Nanak from February, 1987 to

February, 1991 where he served as the Inspector performing functions

of a Company Second in Command and at times he even officiated as

the Company Commander.

3. According to the petitioner, in the 57th Battalion he had served

under Sh.U.K.Chaudhary, Commandant of the battalion, while the DIG

of the force in the said sector was Mr.V.S.Sirohi, respondent No.3.

4. The petitioner also contended that under his able leadership he

was involved in an armed encounter on 27th November, 1990 with the

terrorists at Chandigarh Tent Post within the area of responsibility.

According to him, in this successful operation five dreaded and listed

terrorists had been killed and huge quantities of arms and ammunition,

and Indian currency was captured from the terrorists. The petitioner

asserted that as a consequence of this, his leadership and his devotion

to duty was highly commended by his Commandant,

Sh.U.K.Chaudhary.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Second-in-Command of

the battalion, Sh. Harpal Singh, was the blue eyed boy of the DIG

V.S.Sirohi. The respondent No.3 had wanted to give the credit of the

said encounter to Sh. Harpal Singh, so he even directed the

Commandant Sh.U.K.Chaudhary to ignore the name of the petitioner

for the gallantry award and respondent No.3 tried to get the award for

his favorite Sh. Harpal Singh instead.

6. The petitioner alleged that he made representations against this

act of the respondent No.3 which made respondent No.3 very inimical

towards him. The petitioner has relied on the letter dated 21st January,

1992 by Sh.R.P.Dabas, Commandant to Sh. A.P.Pandey, IPS indicating

that the petitioner had taken part in an encounter leading to the killing

of some listed terrorists and on account of the clash of interest between

CO/2 I/C, the SO had become a victim of witch hunting and was also

being deliberately dragged into fabricated cases. It was further indicated

that a bright, promising and selfless Commander had already suffered

on account of this mudslinging game of conflicting interest and that he

had been superseded in promotion to the post of Assistant

Commandant. The Commandant, 7th Battalion BSF thus recommended

that the interests of the said SO, Sh. Molar Ram/petitioner are required

to be protected. Reliance is also placed on the letter dated 24th

November, 1992 whereby Sh.U.K.Chaudhary, Commandant of the 57th

Battalion, in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner, had sent

his comments to the Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarter BSF

Gurdaspur contending that the major share of credit for the successful

operation went to Subedar Molar Ram because had he not swung into

action without losing time, the terrorists would have found their way to

the Babbar Khalsa Terrorists in India and in this connection he also

referred to the report dated 27th November, 1990 pertaining to the said

encounter in the area. He also stated that the cruel deprival of due

credit of successful encounter and wrongly awarding the same to Sh.

Harpal Singh has pained him tremendously and thus he recommended

that the petitioner‟s contribution to the successful operation should be

given due recognition.

7. The petitioner also alleged that though the Commandant,

Sh.U.K.Chaudhary had graded him "excellent" in the Annual

Confidential Reports, however, respondent No.3 had brought it down

and on account of this the petitioner was even superseded in 1992 due

to the malafides committed on the part of respondent No.3. The

petitioner also contended that he had challenged his supersession to

the post of Assistant Commandant by filing the writ petition being

W.P(C) No.62/1994. The petitioner, however, disclosed that

subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Commandant on 15th

March, 1993 with the subsequent batch and was posted to the 88th

Battalion BSF at Guwahati during the period of September, 1993 to

January, 1995.

8. According to the petitioner, though he again showed the quality of

his leadership in the encounter on 13th April, 1994 for which even his

Commandant Sh.R.M.Kadian, respondent No.5 had highly praised him,

however, subsequently he too became inimical towards the petitioner,

as he had declined to carry out his illegal order of smuggling liquor from

across the border, from Bhutan. Sh.R.M.Kadian, respondent No.5 also

did not recommend his acts for the gallantry award and instead

recommended others. Later on, he was also implicated in false criminal

cases, however, the DIG, BSF, Guwahati after conducting an informal

enquiry had dropped all the accusations levelled against the petitioner.

9. The plea of the petitioner is that despite all this, at the instance of

respondent No.5 and respondent no. 3, he was transferred to the 118th

Battalion with the intention of starting fresh action in respect of

accusations, for which he had earlier been absolved of, by

Sh.U.K.Chaudhary, DIG, BSF, Guwahati.

10. The petitioner relied on the Recommendation Card issued to him

in April, 1995 for his praiseworthy performance in the Assembly

Elections in Manipur during February, 1995. Reliance was also placed

on the Signal (telegram) of the petitioner‟s Commandant sent on 6th

April, 1996 appreciating the petitioner for managing the law and order

situation in Assam during the assembly elections. The petitioner further

relied on the letter dated 8th June, 1996 which was allegedly regarding

the laudatory performance of the petitioner during the IS duties in

Assam, Tripura, Kupwara, and Srinagar.

11. The petitioner disclosed that thereafter he was sent a letter dated

22nd June, 1996 along with the extracts of his Annual Confidential

Report for the year 1995-1996. According to him, the extracts reveal

that the ACR for the period 1995-96 did not contain any adverse entry

against him.

12. Later on, by letter dated 9th November, 1996, the petitioner was

sent the remarks relied on in his ACR for the period ending 31st March,

1996. The remarks incorporated in his ACR for 31st March, 1996 by

letter dated 9th November, 1996 is reproduced as under:-

"An intelligent and smart officer, who is potential to be a good field commander. Requires supervision". "Since ROE is pending against him, his integrity cannot be certified."

By the said letter dated 9th November, 1996, the petitioner was

also given an opportunity to make a representation, if any, regarding

the remarks made in his ACR for the period ending 31st March, 1996.

13. The petitioner contended that the remark in his ACR for the

period ending 31st March, 1996 was made at the behest of

Sh.R.M.Kadian, respondent No.5 and Sh.V.S.Sirohi, respondent No.3 to

settle old scores with him. The petitioner also contended that the

remark incorporated in his ACR for the period ending 31st March, 1996

was in fact an adverse remark. The petitioner, therefore, made a

representation dated 26th November, 1996 against the alleged adverse

remarks to the Inspector General, Border Security Force.

14. The petitioner was thereafter intimated by communication dated

4th August, 1997 that his representation against the remark made in

his ACR for the period ending 31st March, 1996 had been examined and

after careful consideration, the respondents were of the view that the

request of the petitioner could not be acceded to as the remarks were

based on facts, as well as on impartial and judicious assessment of his

work and conduct during the said work.

15. The petitioner also relied on the communication dated 25th

March, 1998 from Sh.U.K.Chaudhary to the Commander 57th Battalion,

BSF indicating that the major credit for the successful encounter on

27th November, 1990 was attributable to the petitioner and despite the

strong representation made by Sh.U.K.Chaudhary, Sh.V.S.Sirohi,

respondent No.3 had directed Mr.U.K.Chaudhary to ignore the name of

the petitioner while recommending the cases for the award of the

gallantry medal.

16. The petitioner further disclosed that the ROE which was started

against the petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 8th June, 1998

holding that on perusal of the evidence on record no prima facie case

was made out against the petitioner under Section 46 and 31(b) of the

BSF Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he used criminal

force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty which is

punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, and also that he had

extracted money from a person without proper authority.

17. Relying on these circumstances, the petitioner contends that he

was overlooked for the promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant on

account of the alleged adverse remarks in his ACR for the period

ending 31st March, 1996 indicating that since the ROE is pending

against him his integrity cannot be certified. Since the ROE was

dismissed by order dated 8th June, 1998 the petitioner sought that his

case for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant be considered

and he be accorded seniority accordingly, by his representation dated

12th October, 1998. The petitioner again represented on 15th January,

1999. However, by order dated 4th March, 1999 the petitioner was

intimated that his representation against the supersession was rejected

on 19th February, 1999. While rejecting the representation of the

petitioner by letter dated 19th February, 1999 it was stated that the

petitioner was considered by the DPC held on 10th/11th August, 1998

for the empanelment and promotion to the rank of Deputy

Commandant. It was stated that on the basis of his confidential reports,

the petitioner was not recommended for promotion to the post of

Deputy Commandant by the said DPC resulting in his supersession.

The communication dated 19th February, 1999 also stipulated that the

writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the High Court.

The request of the petitioner for expunging the alleged adverse remarks

wherein it was stated in his ACR for the period ending 31st March, 1996

that his integrity could not be certified as the ROE was pending against

him, was also rejected by letter dated 29th April, 1999.

18. Aggrieved by not expunging the remark in his ACR for the period

ending 31st March, 1996 and the petitioner‟s supersession as he was

not recommended by the DPC held on 10th/11th August, 1998 for the

empanelment and promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant, the

petitioner has challenged the same in the present writ petition on the

ground that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner by DIG Vikram

Singh is malafide and smacks of personal vendetta. The petitioner also

pointed out that his Commander had lauded his performance, whereas,

the DIG who was hundreds of miles away had commented adversely on

his performance and that the said remarks of the DIG are not a true

commentary of the petitioner‟s performance and thus could not be

relied on. The alleged adverse remark that his integrity cannot be

certified on account of the pendency of ROE is also challenged on the

ground that the commandant at one time had lauded his performance,

while on the other hand he had commented adversely on him on

another occasion. According to the petitioner, after the dismissal of the

ROE, the adverse remark that his integrity cannot be certified ought to

have been withdrawn and fresh comments should have been noted. The

petitioner further asserted that the remark that the petitioner "requires

supervision" is also completely incongruent and is without any

application of mind and that in the case of petitioner since the ROE was

pending at the time the DPC was held, thus the "sealed cover

procedure" ought to have been followed for his promotion to the next

rank of Deputy Commandant. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that

the recommendation of the DPC could not be relied on. The petitioner

asserted that the whole episode is a sad and unfortunate commentary

about the functioning of a superior officer, and the measures he would

adopt while victimizing a junior officer due to personal vendetta.

19. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who filed

a counter affidavit dated 22nd May, 2001 of Sh.S.S.Sambyal, Deputy

Inspector General (Personnel). The respondents in their counter

affidavit disclosed that when the petitioner was working with the 57th

Battalion BSF as an officiating Company Commander (in the rank of

Subedar), an encounter had taken place on 27th November, 1990 with

the intruders under the jurisdiction of petitioner‟s company, in which 5

intruders were killed and large number of arms and ammunitions were

recovered. Relying on the detailed report of the encounter prepared by

the 57th battalion dated 5th December, 1990, it was contended that

there was no significant contribution on the part of the petitioner in the

said encounter.

20. The respondents further disclosed that from September, 1993 to

April, 1995 when the petitioner was serving with the 88th battalion

another encounter had taken place on 13th April, 1994 with the

members of the outlawed ULFA. The said encounter was conducted by

the DIG, Guwahati with the Commandant of 88th battalion, BSF and the

Tezpur Police Personnel under the command of Additional SP Sonitpur,

Assam. The respondents disclosed that on this occasion as well the

petitioner did not make any substantial positive contribution to the

operation which was revealed from the spot verification.

21. According to the respondents, the petitioner was transferred to D

Company of the 88th Battalion BSF and he had assumed charge at the

118th Battalion on 5th May, 1995. It is also disclosed that some

allegations against the petitioner about taking illegal gratification and

outraging the modesty of females during the period of March, 1994 to

May, 1994 were also received when the petitioner was posted in „D‟

Company of the 88th Battalion at Charduwar and Udalguri in 1994.

Accordingly an SCOI was ordered vide FTR HQ Shillong order dated 12th

July, 1995 followed with an additional inquiry by order dated 15th April,

1996. The petitioner was attached to the 64th Battalion at that time. The

respondents alleged that the SCOI blamed the petitioner for attempting

to outrage the modesty of one civilian lady at village Murikhuthi and

accepting illegal gratification of Rs.800/- from Sh.Om Prakash

Chaudhary at village Namba Bhakula in the year 1994. Later on, by the

order dated 20th February, 1997, disciplinary action was initiated

against the petitioner. The petitioner was later attached with the 80th

Battalion BSF for disciplinary action and accordingly the ROE and

additional ROE was recorded. However, in the ROE‟s the charges

against the petitioner could not be proved due to change of the

statements of the witnesses. The prime witnesses were also not

available as their whereabouts were not known and accordingly the

Commandant of the 80th Battalion BSF dismissed the charges against

the petitioner by order dated 9th June, 1998.

22. The respondents, however, made a specific averment in the

counter affidavit filed on their behalf that the DPC did not recommend

the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Deputy

Commandant on account of the existence of the adverse remarks in the

ACR of the petitioner for the year 1995-96 which resulted in the

supersession.

23. The respondents also pointed out the contradictory stand taken

by the petitioner, as in the present writ petition the petitioner has

contended about the satisfaction of Sh.U.K.Chaudhary, Commandant

57th Battalion, BSF, however, in the writ petition No.62/1994, which

was filed by the petitioner against his supersession to the rank of

Deputy Commandant, the petitioner had shown his dissatisfaction with

the said Commandant. The respondents stated in para 4 of the counter

affidavit as under:-

".........At para 10 of that writ petition he expressed his dissatisfaction with Shri U.K.Chaudhary, Commandant 57 Bn BSF. The relevant excerpts would clear the position. They are as follows:

"that at the relevant time the Commandant of the Bn was U.K.Chaudhary and his Second-in-Command was Shri Harpal Singh. Both these officers tried to take credit for planning and conducting the aforementioned operation (operation against the intruders dated 27/11/90). In that process lot of mud-slinging took place between them and both of them tried to push the real hero of the operation, the petitioner into the back ground", "as a result of the tug of war between these two officers, the achievements of the petitioner were eclipsed", "it is possible that some thing damaging might have been recorded in his ACR but nothing has been communicated to him till date".

24. Regarding the plea of the petitioner that the Second-in-Command

Harpal Singh wanted to take the credit though he had no substantial

role in the operation, the same fact was denied by the respondents and

it was asserted that the second-in-command, Sh. Harpal Singh in fact

commanded the entire operation, thus credit for the success of the

operation automatically went to him. To refute the allegation of the

petitioner, reliance was also placed on the detailed report prepared by

the Commandant 57th Battalion on 5th December, 1990 which does not

refer to any specific gallantry action on the part of the petitioner so as

to entitle him for a medal. The allegation that the DIG had issued

direction to the Commandant, 57th Battalion for ignoring the name of

the petitioner for the gallantry award was also not admitted and was

specifically denied. It was also asserted that the petitioner had fired

LMG and bombs on the intruders without yielding any results. On the

basis of the detailed report it was contended that it does not disclose

any action on the part of the petitioner which would entitle him to a

medal. The respondents in detail denied various other allegations made

by the petitioner regarding his alleged gallantry actions in different roles

and encounters on different dates.

25. The respondents categorically denied in their counter affidavit

that the adverse remark, stipulating that since the ROE was pending

against the petitioner his integrity cannot be certified, was made at the

behest of Sh.Vikram Singh, Sh.R.M.Kadian and Sh.V.S.Sirohi, IG, BSF,

Shillong. The respondents contended that they were the Initiating

Officer, Reviewing Officers and Accepting Authority respectively in

finalizing the ACR and that all the officials had endorsed their

independent remarks based on their objective assessment on the overall

performance and conduct of the officer reported during the particular

ACR in question.

26. Regarding the DPC held in 1998 it was disclosed that the DPC

considered the entire material and did not find the petitioner suitable

for recommendation for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant.

The representation by the petitioner was received and was disposed of.

The representation dated 15th January, 1999 addressed to the Director

General was also considered and after considering the facts and record,

the same was rejected and was conveyed to the petitioner by letter

dated 29th April, 1999.

27. Despite the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by

Sh.S.S.Sambyal, working as the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel),

who also verified the contents of the affidavit as true to his knowledge

and belief and as per the official records available, the petitioner did not

file any rejoinder to the pleas and contentions raised by the

respondents in their counter affidavit dated 7th May, 2001.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that

he does not have any instructions from the petitioner despite various

communications addressed by him to the petitioner. The learned

counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kapoor contended that he has made

submissions on the basis of the record, a copy of which he was able to

obtain from the Court record and from the counsel for the respondents

as the petitioner had taken away the file of the case from him.

29. The matter was taken up for arguments on 6th February, 2012

and the matter was partly argued. Thereafter, the matter was again

taken up for hearing on 5th March, 2012, however, no application was

filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for his discharge from the

case on any other grounds, rather the matter had been argued

substantially by the learned counsel. On 6th February, 2012 the

respondents were directed to produce the original record relating to the

instructions with regard to the DPC, especially the guidelines for the

DPC. The respondents produced the minutes of the meeting of the DPC

held on 10th and 11th August, 1998 for the consideration of the cases of

Assistant Commandant for their empanelment and eventual promotion

to the rank of Deputy Commandant after one year relaxation in service

eligibility granted by DOP&T/MHA in the BSF.

30. Perusal of the original record produced by the respondents

reveals that the DPC had indeed considered the case of the petitioner

for empanelment and promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant

with other eligible Assistant Commandants. The DPC had also graded

the Assistant Commandants who were considered for empanelment for

promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant, however, the petitioner

was graded as unfit. Perusal of the record reveals that not only the

petitioner but some other Assistant Commandants were also graded as

unfit for promotion whereas some of them were graded as "Good" and

others were graded "Very Good". In case of some of the Assistant

Commandants the "sealed cover procedure" was adopted as the

proceedings against them were pending. The name of the petitioner in

the list of officers who were considered for empanelment has appeared

at serial No.170 with IRLA No.49160. Perusal of the record also reveals

that the departmental promotion committee which considered the cases

of Assistant Commandants on 10th August, 1998 comprised of the

Director General, BSF as its chairman; IG, BSF as member; IG

(Personnel) BSF as a member; another IG, BSF as a member; DS (CPO)

MHA as a member and DIG, BSF a Co-opted member. The minutes also

revealed that the Additional DG, BSF could not be present in the DPC

meeting but in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the BSF (Seniority,

Promotion & Superannuation of Officers) Amendment Rules, 1989 the

DPC could consider the cases in absence of any member and the DPC

proceedings could not be invalidated, if more than half the members of

the DPC were present.

31. It is also apparent that 31 officers were graded as unfit for

promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant by the said DPC and

thus, the petitioner was not the only person who was graded unfit.

However, it is pertinent to note that while grading the petitioner unfit,

no comment was recorded declaring him unfit on account of the

pendency of the ROE or any alleged adverse remark in any of his ACRs.

Whereas the DPC categorically recorded the reasons for not empanelling

some of the officers, as the detailed reasons were mentioned against

their names, however, no reasons were mentioned before the name of

the petitioner for grading him unfit. Thus, it is conspicuous in case of

the petitioner that he was not recommended „unfit‟ on account of

remark in his ACR OF 1996 that his integrity cannot be certified as

ROE was pending against him. No such reason is apparent or can be

inferred from the perusal of the entire record, except that the DPC

found him unfit for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant

considering his relevant ACRs.

32. From the perusal of the minutes of the DPC it does become

apparent and clear that on consideration of the ACRs of the petitioner

he was found unfit for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant

and not on account of the alleged adverse remarks made in his ACR for

the period 31st March, 1996 that his integrity cannot be certified as the

ROE was pending against him though it is so stipulated by the

respondents in the counter affidavit. The averment made by the

respondents in their counter affidavit is also not in consonance with the

original record which was produced by the respondents at the instance

of this Court. In case of any variation in the averments made by the

respondents and the original record, this Court is of the opinion that

the original record will prevail and not the averment made in the

affidavit on behalf of respondents.

33. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

averment made by the respondents that the petitioner was not

recommended on account of adverse entry in his ACR for the period

ending 31st March, 1996 shall prevail, cannot be accepted in the facts

and circumstances. In any case, the petitioner did not refute any of the

allegations made by the respondents as no rejoinder was filed to the

averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit.

34. The record produced by the respondents also has the synopsis of

the ACRs of the candidates which were produced before the DPC which

met on 10th August, 1998 for empanelment and promotion of Assistant

Commandants to the post of Deputy Commandants. The synopsis of the

ACRs of the petitioner in that record appears at serial No.170 which has

been perused by this Court. The synopsis of the ACRs was in respect of

ACRs for 1993-94; 1994-95; 1995-96; 1996-97 and 1997-98.

35. The respondents have also produced the original ACRs of the

petitioner for the period 1993-94; 1994-95; 1995-96 and from 1st April,

1996 to 31st July, 1996 and for 1997-98. The ACR of 1995-96 is for the

period6.5.1995-1996. On twenty different parameters, marks have

been given by the I.O and R.O. The assessment of I.O and R.O for

twenty parameters is almost same. There is a marginal difference of two

marks between the I.O and R.O. The ACR also have the remark of Final

Acceptance Authority as „Since ROE is pending against him, his

integrity cannot be certified'. This is dated 3.9.1996. There is another

endorsement dated 5th August, 1998 as „ROE completed & CA

dismissed the Charge‟. Both I.O and R.O has graded him as average.

Since the DPC had met on 10-11th August, 2008 and noting about

dismissal of charges and completion of ROE was made on 5th August,

2008 on the ACR of 1995-1996. Consequently, the remark in the ACR

of 1995-1996 that since ROE is pending against the petitioner and,

therefore, his integrity cannot be certified made on 13th September,

1996 had been clarified that ROE was completed and the charges has

been dismissed on 5th August, 1998 and, therefore, while taking the

ACR into consideration on 10th/11th August, 1998, the DPC has not

declared the petitioner "unfit" on account of said remark and the plea of

the petitioner to that effect cannot be accepted.

36. Though synopsis of the ACRs of the petitioner which was before

the DPC showed Very Good for 1993-1994; Average for 1994-1995;

Average for 1995-1996; Blank for 1996-1997 and Very Good for 1997-

1998, however, perusal of the ACR of 1996-1997 shows that the ACR

was for the period 1st April, 1996 to 31st July, 1996 and the petitioner

was graded as Good. The grading of the petitioner was on the basis of

the marks awarded in respect of 20 parameters. The marks awarded by

the IO and RO only entitled the petitioner for the grading „Good‟. The

yardstick for awarding different grading had been, over 90,

Outstanding; between 76-90, Very Good; 61-75, Good; 50-60 Average

and below 50 Poor. The petitioner‟s plea that he was graded Average for

1995-96 on account of the acts imputable to respondent Nos.3 to 5,

therefore, cannot be accepted. The petitioner was given marks on the 20

different parameters for the year 1993-1994 by the IO and RO so as to

be graded as Very Good, whereas for 1994-1995 the grading by the RO

entitled him for the grading of Average. Similar is the situation for the

year 1995-1996 for the period 6th May, 1995 to 31st March, 1996. On

detailed perusal of the minutes of the DPC and ACRs of the petitioner

as well as the entire record has been produced by the respondents, this

Court is unable to accept the pleas and contentions of the petitioner

that the DPC had held him unfit on account of the `remark‟ and on

account of the acts imputable to respondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner

in the facts and circumstances is not entitled for a direction that the

remark that his integrity cannot be certified on account of ROE be

expunged as that remark had been expunged on 5th August, 1998 prior

to the date DPC had considered the said ACR. The petitioner is also not

entitled for fresh consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy

Commandant after expunging the said remark as the DPC has

considered the petitioner with the said remark removed prior to the date

the DPC which met on 10th/11th August, 1998. The petitioner,

therefore, is also not entitled to be selected for the post of Deputy

Commandant with other officers of his own batch, nor can he retain his

original seniority with all consequential benefits.

37. The petitioner is also not entitled for any independent enquiry

against respondent Nos.3 to 5, nor he is entitled for a compensation of

Rs.10 lakhs or any other amount. The petitioner cannot claim

harassment and loss of reputation on account of alleged criminal

charges from the respondents in the facts and circumstances in the

present writ petition. Reliefs claimed by the petitioner cannot be

granted in the facts and circumstances. The writ petition is without any

merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore,

dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MARCH 23, 2012 „k‟