Narender Kumar Ruria vs Union Of India & Ors

,,,

Navin Chawla, J",,,

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.,,,

CM 26119/2021(Exemption),,,

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.",,,

W.P.(C) 8435/2021,,,

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his Annual Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as the,,,

‘APAR’) for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 to the extent whereby the petitioner has been given adverse remarks by the Reporting,,,

Officer/Initiating Officer, respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition.",,,

The petitioner further challenges his Part Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PPAR’) for the period 01.04.2013,,,

to 11.10.2013 to the extent that the petitioner was numerically graded low. The petitioner also challenges the Orders dated 31.05.2016 and 18.11.2016,,,

rejecting his representations against PPAR as also non-grant of MACP benefit. As a consequence, the petitioner prays for the grant of a second",,,

MACP benefit as also promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command with all consequential benefits.,,,

It is the case of the petitioner that while being posted as an Adjutant at 68 Bn, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir, he initiated the case of removal of one",,,

Constable Gurnam Singh who had been convicted of a criminal offence in the year 1997 and was performing duties as a ‘Granthi’ at the Unit.,,,

This was not to the liking of respondent no. 4, who was the then Commandant of the battalion. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that",,,

because of this ill-will, the respondent no. 4, with a mala fide intent, downgraded the petitioner and made adverse observations in his APAR/PPAR for",,,

the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012; 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013; and 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013, on which date the petitioner was moved out to 29",,,

Bn, Salbagan, Tripura. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that but for this period, the petitioner has always been graded as",,,

‘outstanding’ or ‘very good’.,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, while the respondent no. 4 gave an overall",,,

grading of 3.8 out of 10 to the petitioner, the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Officer gave an overall grading of 6.93 out of 10 to the petitioner.",,,

It was only in a status report dated 20.04.18 filed by the respondent no. 2 before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (hereinafter referred,,,

to as the ‘learned NCSC’), in a complaint filed by the petitioner, that the petitioner was informed that the adverse remarks against him have",,,

been wrongly communicated as neither the Reviewing Officer nor the Accepting Officer had agreed with the remarks of the Initiating Officer.,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, the respondent no. 4 again, with a mala fide intent,",,,

gave overall grading of 3.82 out of 10 to the petitioner. The Reviewing Authority, however, graded the petitioner at 7.12 out of 10 and the Accepting",,,

Officer again agreed with the Reviewing Officer. The petitioner avers that though the above facts were similar to his APAR from 01.04.2011 to,,,

31.03.2012, the representation of the petitioner against the same was rejected.",,,

Insofar as the PPAR for the period 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013 is concerned, the petitioner was again given an overall grading of only 3.67 out of 10",,,

by the respondent no. 4, whereas the Reviewing Authority gave an overall grading of 6.49 out of 10 and the Accepting Authority gave an overall",,,

grading of 5.0 out of 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the overall grading was reduced only because of the Director,,,

General’s displeasure issued to the petitioner.,,,

As far as the Director General’s displeasure(s) are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first displeasure was",,,

issued against him on 11.02.2013 without appreciating that the petitioner was not at fault. He submits that by a signal received by the petitioner on,,,

03.03.2012, the petitioner was detailed as a Liaison Officer for DG, BSF-BGB level talks with effect from 11.03.2012 to 16.03.2012. On 06.03.2012,",,,

the petitioner was handed over the movement order to proceed for FHQ, New Delhi. When the petitioner was about to leave for the railway station,",,,

his movement order was taken back on the instructions of the respondent no. 4 without informing any reason for the same. The petitioner submits that,,,

since he was under stress due to the illness of his mother coupled with the arbitrary act of the respondent no. 4, he applied for five days leave and",,,

proceeded for New Delhi. Upon arriving, he reported at ‘G’ Dte FHQ on 07.03.2012 and was assured that his case of being ‘absent without",,,

leave’ will be taken care of. However, the petitioner was still awarded the Director General’s displeasure by the Office Order dated",,,

11.02.2013.,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second displeasure was issued against the petitioner on 28.06.2013. He states that here again,,,

the petitioner was not at fault as, while being detailed as Team Captain of Jammu Ftr that took part in Inter-Frontier Shooting Camp, held in February,",,,

2012, the petitioner had asked the Adm NCO to collect certain liquor bottles from the Unit Canteen for the firing team and had taken it to Hazaribagh,",,,

being the venue of the Camp. On returning to the Unit, since the canteen NCO was proceeding on leave, he had asked the petitioner, being the Unit",,,

Adjutant and Canteen Officer, to clear off the pending bill. The petitioner had asked the Adm NCO, Sh. Brij Bhushan, to pay ₹10,863/- (Rupees ten",,,

thousand eight hundred sixty-three) to the Canteen NCO for the liquor drawn from the Unit Canteen as he was not carrying cash on that day.,,,

Thereafter, as the Adm NCO, Sh. Brij Bhushan got admitted to the Unit Hospital the very next day and the petitioner got busy with his routine",,,

job/duty, he forgot to pay back the amount to Sh. Brij Bhushan. On being reminded, the petitioner returned the money to him on 09.03.2012. He",,,

submits that therefore, no financial irregularities should be attributed to the petitioner in the said case.",,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks given by the respondent no. 4 was not only mala fide but was also not,,,

preceded by any advice or warning issued to the petitioner. He submits that mala fide of the respondent no. 4 is apparent as the Reviewing Officer,,,

and the Accepting Authority have consistently upgraded the petitioner in spite of the adverse remarks by the respondent no. 4.,,,

He further submits that the delay in submitting the PPAR for the period 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013 has been wrongly attributed to the petitioner.,,,

The petitioner had in fact submitted the same in time, however, was later informed that the same has been misplaced. The petitioner thereafter, on",,,

being asked, resubmitted the same.",,,

Insofar as the Director General’s displeasure is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise, the same could",,,

not have been considered for denying the second MACP or promotion to the petitioner, as the same is not to be treated as a punishment that can",,,

adversely affect the prospects of the service of the personnel concerned.,,,

DSC dated,"Date of

consideration",Findings of DSC,Remarks

03.05.2012,06.05.2012,Sealed cover case,"Disc case pending

against him

04.04.2013,06.05.2013,Sealed cover case,"Disciplinary case

pending against him

04.09.2015,"06.05.2014

06.05.2015","UNFIT

UNFIT","Due to DG's

displeasure dated

11.02.2013 and

28.06.2013

Due to adverse

remarks in his PPAR

for the period from

01.04.2013 to

11.10.2013

DPC dated,Vacancy year,Finding of DPC,Remarks

24.09.2012,2012-13,Sealed cover case,Due to pending of ROE

23.12.2013,2013-14,UNFIT,"Due to DG's displeasure

dated 11.02.2013 and

28.06.2013

09.09.2014,2014-15,UNFIT,"Due to DG's displeasure

dated 11.02.2013 and

28.06.2013

30.09.2015,2015-16,UNFIT,"Due to adverse

remarks in APAR 2013-

14

PPAR 2013-14 (01.04.13

to 11.10.13)","(a) The officer has mentioned

nothing in self appraisal for the

IO to comment upon, 'agree' or

'disagree'. The officer was not

given any assignment due to his

repeated acts of

misconduct and pendency

of an inquiry against him. Delay

in submission of PPAR reflects

arrogance in the officer that is

negative traits in an

officer's personality.

(2) FPET Standard - Not done

ARCF Standard-

Not done

(3) Integrity- Doubtful

(4) Officer was involved in

misusing the funds of Jawans

Mess (for which he was the

custodian)

and using for clearing his liquor

dues. Awarded displeasure by the

DG","Officer submitted representation

dated 28 Oct. 2015. The ADG

(West) has rejected his

representation being devoid of

merit vide order No.692-96

dated 31.05.2015.",

,"BSF taking a lenient view.

(5) A slim, medium statured

officer. He can use his expression

of words to cover his misdeeds.

The officer was awarded a

Displeasure by the DG BSF for

misusing funds of the Jawans

mess and using it for payment of

his liquor bills. Another SCOI was

conducted and officer adviced by

FTr HQ Jammu, to improve his

conduct. Despite being issued

DG's displeasure and Advise by

the FTr HQ BSF Jammu, the

officer did not show any

improvement in his conduct. An

arrogant

and undisciplined officer.

(6) The details of DG Displeasure

for misusing the funds of Jawans

Mess indicates a serious flaw in

the frame of mind. Was also

issued Advisory by IG. Was not

entrusted any other responsibility.

I agree with the assessment/pen

picture of

CO of the Unit.",,

Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.",,,

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.,,,