[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ravindra Prasad vs The Union Of India on 6 January, 2026
W.P.No.722 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.722 of 2016
Ravindra Prasad
Commandant, RTC
Central Reserve Police Force
Avadi, Chennai-600 065. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home, New Delhi
Office at North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force
Office at C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110 003.
3. The Inspector General (Pers)
Office at Directorate General
Central Reserve Police Force
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110 003.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Pers)
CRPF, Office at Directorate General,
Central Reserve Police Force
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
Page Nos.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
W.P.No.722 of 2016
New Delhi – 110 003.
5. The Deputy Inspector General (Principal)
Recruit Training Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force
Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
6. Mr.Rajiv Chowdhary
Commandant 156 Bn
Central Reserve Police Force
Assam. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in No.VII-4/2012-Pers-
DA-1 dated 22.11.2012 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1
to 5 to promote the petitioner as Commandant with effect from 25.10.2012
and to pay all monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja
Senior Panel counsel for R1
R2 to R5 – Served – NA
R6 – Dismissed
vide order dated 16.06.2017
*****
Page Nos.2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
W.P.No.722 of 2016
ORDER
The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), declaring the petitioner unfit for
promotion to the rank of Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Second-in-Commandant, was
imposed with a punishment of displeasure for having remained
unauthorisedly absent for a period of ten days. Although the name of the
petitioner was included in the panel for promotion to the post of
Commandant for the year 2012, his case was not considered on the ground
that there was an adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR)
for the year 2007–2008. The representation submitted by the petitioner was
rejected, which necessitated the filing of the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the competent
authority had merely conveyed displeasure against the petitioner for the said
unauthorised absence and that such displeasure does not amount to a penalty
under the applicable service rules. It was contended that the same cannot
operate as a bar for consideration for promotion. In support of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
submission, reliance was placed on the Office Memorandum dated
07.07.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training. The
learned counsel further submitted that the denial of promotion to the
petitioner to the post of Commandant from the year 2012 is arbitrary and
discriminatory.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that there was an adverse remark in the ACR of the petitioner for
the year 2007–2008 and therefore, the said adverse remark constituted a
valid bar for consideration of promotion to the post of Commandant. It was
further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim was justified and
does not warrant interference by this Court. The learned counsel also
contended that adverse remarks cannot ordinarily be interfered with in writ
jurisdiction. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6498 of
2003 (Ajit Kumar v. Union of India and another).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and
the materials available on record have been duly considered.
6. The Director General, CRPF, by order dated 30.10.2009, held that
the acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner warranted
stern disciplinary action; however, after carefully evaluating all the relevant
factors of the case, a lenient view was taken and only displeasure was
conveyed to the petitioner. Except for the said adverse remark, there are no
other adverse entries against the petitioner.
7. The Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2008 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, clarifies that warnings, letters of caution, reprimands or advisories
administered to Government servants do not amount to a penalty and
therefore, shall not constitute a bar for consideration for promotion. In the
instant case, the displeasure expressed by the competent authority does not
amount to imposition of any penalty so as to disentitle the petitioner from
being considered for promotion to the post of Commandant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
8. In the absence of any statutory or administrative bar, the denial of
the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Commandant solely on the
basis of the said adverse remark is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The
reliance placed by the learned counsel for the first respondent on the
decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.6498 of 2003 is misplaced,
as the said judgment holds that an APAR can be interfered with in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only if it is actuated
by malice or is unfounded or arbitrary. In the present case, there is no
challenge to the adverse remark itself; rather, the issue pertains to the effect
of such remark on promotion in the light of the applicable Office
Memorandum. Consequently, the denial of the petitioner’s claim for
promotion to the rank of Commandant for the year 2012 cannot be sustained
and is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 22.11.2012 passed by the fourth respondent is hereby quashed. The
respondents 1 to 5 are directed to promote the petitioner to the rank of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
Commandant with effect from 25.10.2012, with all attendant benefits, and to
revise the seniority list accordingly. The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs.
06.01.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
To
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home, New Delhi
Office at North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force
Office at C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110 003.
3. The Inspector General (Pers)
Office at Directorate General
Central Reserve Police Force
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110 003.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Pers)
CRPF, Office at Directorate General,
Central Reserve Police Force
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
5. The Deputy Inspector General (Principal)
Recruit Training Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force
Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 05:55:00 pm )
