Suresh Chander Parashar vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 5 December, 2019

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Suresh Chander Parashar vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 5 December, 2019

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER Date : 05-12-2019 Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. S. Kakoti, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of a communication dated 05.07.2017 and an order dated 10.05.2018 with further directions to the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.), Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) with effect from 01.02.2014 i.e. the date from which his immediate juniors were promoted and to provide all the consequential benefits of the post of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. with effect from 01.02.2014. By the communication dated 05.07.2017, the petitioner was informed by the office of the Director General, C.R.P.F. that his representation dated 15.07.2016 as regards his promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. was considered by a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) but the Review D.P.C. found the petitioner not suitable for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. By the order dated 10.05.2018 issued under the hand of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which was issued with the approval of the Competent Authority, the representation filed by the petitioner on 03.11.2017, pursuant to an order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a writ petition, C.M.W.P. No. 46876/2017, permitting the petitioner to submit such representation, for considering him for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. was rejected.

3. The relevant and pertinent facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the present writ petition by the petitioner who is presently serving in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.), C.R.P.F. are to be noticed for the purpose of appreciation of the issues raised in the writ petition.

4. The petitioner joined as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.)/Assistant Commandant in the C.R.P.F. on 16.10.1984. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and finally, to the post of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. in which post he is presently serving. When the Page No. 3/24 petitioner was functioning as a Commandant, 102 Bn RAF, Mumbai in the year 2008, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by a Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated 05.03.2008. After appointment of Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer, the said disciplinary proceeding continued against the petitioner under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 by recording in the process statements of 10 prosecution witnesses and 13 defence witnesses, wherein the petitioner as the delinquent officer participated along with his Defence Assistant.

5. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) of the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013 was prepared and the said report was in two parts - one part was for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 and the other part was for the period from 09.10.2012 to 31.03.2013.

5.1 In respect of the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012, the Grading given by the Reporting Authority which was signed on 14.10.2012, in the said APAR was "Good". The Reporting Authority had reported about the Pen-Picture of the petitioner as on 16.10.2012, as under : -

"ससामसान्य ततौर पर अधधिकसाररी पररचसालधनिक एववं प्रशसासधनिक दृधष्टि ससे अचसा कसारर्य कर रहसे हह , लसेधकनि इनिकसे आचरण पर कडरी धनिगरसानिरी रखनिसे करी आवश्यकतसा हह"

In respect of the aforesaid Pen-Picture remark of the Reporting Authority about the petitioner, it was recorded on 17.12.2012 by the Reviewing Authority in the APAR that the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 in respect to the petitioner could not be reviewed as the then Accepting Authority had already proceeded on superannuation on 30.09.2012. He as the subsequent Reviewing Authority, had no comments on the same as he had taken over the charge w.e.f. 09.11.2012.

5.2 In respect of the APAR for the period from 09.10.2012 to 31.03.2013, the Reporting Authority on 29.05.2013 by giving the petitioner Grading of 7.4, had reported about the Pen- Picture of the petitioner as under : -

"Shri S. C. Parashar is an experienced competent and active officer. As DIG Range Amethi, he delivered very good performance."

On the above Pen-Picture of the petitioner recorded by the Reporting Authority, the Reviewing Page No. 4/24 Authority had recorded his remark on 20.06.2013 by giving a Grading of 6.5, as "Overall Very Good" for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. Both the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority had given the Gradings as "Very Good" to the petitioner. The Reviewing Authority who himself was the Accepting Authority, had in his remarks on Grading, stated that he himself had reviewed the APAR.

6. Having noticed that the Reviewing Authority had not reviewed the performance of the petitioner in the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 whereas the Accepting Authority had recorded the remark to the effect that he had reviewed the APAR of the petitioner himself, the petitioner by his communication dated 03.10.2013 had sought a clarification from the Director General, C.R.P.F. by requesting him to elucidate whether the remark for the Reviewing Authority cum Accepting Authority was applicable for the whole year i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 or otherwise. In response, a reply was furnished from the office of the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. to the petitioner on 02.01.2014 informing him that the Director General, C.R.P.F. vide his office letter dated 13.11.2013 had clarified that though his APAR was written in two parts with different final Gradings but his overall final Grading in the APAR for the entire year : 2012-2013 was "Very Good".

7. In the meantime, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner was culminated on 09.04.2013 by an order passed by the Director General, C.R.P.F. with imposition of penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 (two) years i.e. from Rs. 51,190/- to Rs. 49,440/- w.e.f. 01.05.2013 for a period of 2 (two) years in the pay band of Rs. 37,400/- to Rs. 67,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 8,900/- with further directions that the petitioner would earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of the period, the reduction would not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

8. The petitioner challenged the said order of penalty dated 09.04.2013 by preferring a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 5451/2013, initially, before the High Court of Manipur and later on, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after it was found that the High Court of Manipur did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by an order dated 20.11.2014 had allowed the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 5451/2013, by setting aside and quashing the said order of penalty dated 09.04.2013.

Page No. 5/24

9. Pursuant to the said order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the petitioner represented before the Competent Authority on 17.01.2015 to restore his position to the stage prior to 09.04.2013 and also to restore his seniority above one Sri P. J. Mohane who had become I.G.P., C.R.P.F. by then through promotion and who, prior to 09.04.2013, was next below the petitioner in the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. The petitioner had mentioned that he should be promoted to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. as the officers juniors to him in the then Gradation List of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. had, thereafter, been promoted to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. The petitioner had submitted a number of representations thereafter to consider his case for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. by taking into consideration the clarification of the Director General, C.R.P.F., as communicated by the letter dated 02.01.2014, and the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was submitted by the petitioner that if the remark given by the Reporting Authority for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 was treated as a reason for non-consideration of his promotion then such representations should be treated as representations against the said purportedly adverse remark, although the Director General, C.R.P.F. as the Senior Reviewing Officer (S.R.O.)/Accepting Authority had graded him as "Very Good" for the whole year of 2012-2013.

10. In compliance of the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the office of the Director General, C.R.P.F. had passed an order on 03.02.2016 by setting aside the order of penalty dated 09.04.2013 in respect of the petitioner with immediate effect.

11. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner along with others, was considered for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. by the DPC held on 22.01.2013 for the vacancy year of 2013-2014 but due to the pendency of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the minutes of the DPC in his case were kept in sealed covers. As the disciplinary proceeding was concluded with the imposition of penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years i.e. from 01.05.2013 to 30.04.2015, by the order dated 09.04.2013, the sealed covers were not acted upon. But after the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the order dated 03.04.2016 whereby the said order of penalty was set aside and quashed, the sealed covers in respect of the minutes of the DPC dated 22.01.2013, were opened and upon such opening, the petitioner was found "Unfit" for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. By a communication Page No. 6/24 dated 17.03.2016 of the O/o the Director General, C.R.P.F. to the Special Director General, Central Zone, Kolkata, the matter was requested to be communicated to the petitioner accordingly. Thereafter, by a communication dated 13.04.2016, the petitioner was informed about the matter of the DPC finding him "Unfit" on 22.01.2013 for promotion to the rank and cadre of I.G.P., C.R.P.F.

12. Aggrieved by the finding of the DPC as "Unfit" the petitioner submitted a representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India through proper channel on 15.07.2016 and had reiterated his prayer for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted on the grounds that the APAR for the period 2012-2013 cannot come in the way of his promotion as the overall Grading therein for the whole year was "Very Good"

and no adverse remark for the said period was ever communicated to him. But by a communication dated 05.07.2017 from the O/o the Director General, C.R.P.F., the petitioner was informed about the fate of his said representation dated 15.07.2016 against supersession in promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. by mentioning that a Review DPC was held to consider his case for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. but he was found not suitable for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. by the DPC. On receipt of the said information, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.08.2017 seeking copies of the notings made by the authorities while considering his representation dated 15.07.2016 and the same were provided to the petitioner on 04.09.2017. From the said notings, it transpired that DPCs were convened on 15.04.2015 for the vacancy year : 2015- 2016 and on 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2016-2017, but the petitioner was assessed as "Unfit" by the DPCs on both the occasions. On the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.07.2016, a DPC again convened on 19.04.2017 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of I.G.P. in the C.R.P.F. with respect to the DPC dated 15.04.2015 and the DPC dated 29.04.2016 but the DPC did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. and the said recommendation was accepted by the Competent Authority.

13. Aggrieved by the manner of consideration of his case for promotion to the rank of I.G.P, C.R.P.F. by the DPC in its meeting dated 22.01.2013, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, C.M.W.P. No. 46876/2017, before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The said writ Page No. 7/24 petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by an order 09.10.2017. It was observed therein that when the DPC met on 22.01.2013, the recommendation for promotion was made on the basis of entries of the past 5 (five) years prior to 2013 and on those years, the petitioner did not have 5 (five) "Very Good" Gradings. When submission was made that subsequently also when the DPC met on 29.04.2016, the case of the petitioner for promotion was ignored despite the petitioner having 3 (three) "Very Good" Gradings and 2 (two) "Outstanding" Gradings, the Court observed that a challenge can be made in respect of the decision of the DPC which met on 29.04.2016 by filing a separate petition. Liberty was granted to the petitioner by observing that in case the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. even subsequently, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the authority for consideration of his case for promotion and it was expected that the authority concerned would do the needful expeditiously.

14. It was on 03.11.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to consider his case for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by its order dated 09.10.2017 passed in the writ petition, C.M.W.P. No. 46876/2017. The petitioner had referred to his Gradings for the years from 2009-2010 to 2014-2015 for consideration and by mentioning that he would be retiring on superannuation on 31.12.2019, he requested for consideration of his case in an expeditious manner.

15. The said representation dated 03.11.2017 was considered in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the same came to be disposed of by an order dated 10.05.2018 passed under the hand of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, with the approval of the Competent Authority, with rejection of the representation. As the said order dated 10.05.2018 is the subject-matter in this writ petition, the operative part of the said order is extracted hereunder for ready reference :-

"WHEREAS, the fact of the matter is that Shri S. C. Parashar, DIG alongwith other eligible officers was considered by DPCs for promotion to the rank of IG for the vacancy years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in the meetings held on 20/06/2014, 15/04/2015, 29/04/2016, respectively, but was not found fit for promotion to the rank of IG. Further, in the Review DPC held on 19/04/2017 Page No. 8/24 for considering him for promotion to the rank of IG with respect to DPCs for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 Shri S. C. Parashar, DIG was again not found fit for promotion. Further, in the DPC held on 14/11/2017 for the year 2017-18, for promotion of officers to the rank of IG, Shri S. C. Parashar, DIG was again considered alongwith other eligible officers but not found fit for promotion. The officer has not been found fit for promotion by the relevant DPCs due to adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 2012-13 which was considered by the DPCs alongwith other APARs.

In view of the submissions made above, the directions of Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in its order dated 09/10/2017 stand already complied. Further, as DPCs for the years 2014-15, 2015-2016, 2016-17 and 2017-18 did not find Shri S. C. Parashar, DIG, fit for promotion to the rank of IG, there is no merit in his representation dated 03/11/2017 for his promotion to the rank of IG and the same is rejected."

16. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 05.03.2008 was concluded with the imposition of penalty on 09.04.2013, but the said penalty was set aside and quashed by the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The respondent Authorities had decided to comply with the order dated 20.11.2014 and did not challenge the same. As a result, the same had attained finality. The APAR of the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013 was prepared in two parts. He submits that when the petitioner had received the copy of said APAR on 13.09.2013, he immediately sought clarification from the Competent Authority finding that the period from 09.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 was not reviewed by the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority but the Reviewing Authority, who was also the Senior Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, had given him the Grading "Overall Very Good". When the petitioner was provided with the clarification from the Director General, C.R.P.F. by the communication dated 02.01.2014 that the petitioner's overall final Grading in the APAR for the entire year : 2012-2013 as "Overall Very Good", there was no occasion for the petitioner to think that there was anything "adverse" against him in the said APAR. He further submits that the Pen-Picture recorded in the first part of the APAR was ambiguous. As the petitioner Page No. 9/24 had Grading of "Good" for the year 2008-2009, there could be reason for denial of promotion to the petitioner for the vacancy years of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 since the requirement was Gradings of 5 (five) "Very Good". But for the vacancy years of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, for which the DPCs met on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016 respectively, there was no ground for the DPCs to treat the petitioner as "Unfit" because for the material periods of preceding 5 (five) years on both the occasions i.e. 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 & 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, the petitioner have 5 (five) "Very Good" Gradings. Therefore, the decision of the Review DPC held on 19.04.2017 is clearly arbitrary and irrational and consequently, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. from the date his juniors were promoted. In support, he has placed reliance in two decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4507/1998 (Gopal Singh Rathore vs. Union of India and another ), decided on 15.11.2002 and reported in 2003 (1) RLR 800, and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 224/2012 (O&M) (Sunil Dutt vs. State of Haryana and another), decided on 12.10.2012 and reported in 2012 Legal Eagle 1177. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725.

17. Mr. Keyal, in his reply, has referred extensively to the statements made in the affidavit- in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein annexed the documents right from the Memorandum dated 05.03.2008 to the impugned order dated 10.05.2018. As the events for the period from 05.03.2008 to 10.05.2018 are already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the same need no reiteration. He has submitted that as per the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), Government of India's instructions, benchmark Grading for promotion from the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. is "Very Good" in all APARs of the preceding 5 (five) years. As the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2008-2009 was not "Very Good", the petitioner did not meet the prescribed benchmark for promotion up to the years - 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The "adverse" remark (as reproduced above in Hindi) recorded by the Reporting Authority for the first part of the APAR for the year : 2012- 2013 i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 with no comments from the Reviewing Authority and the Senior Reviewing Authority, was brought to the notice of the petitioner vide the Page No. 10/24 Directorate, C.R.P.F.'s letter No.G.II-1/2013-CRC dated 13.09.2013 (Appendix-I to the affidavit-in-opposition) for his information and submission of representation, if any. The petitioner did not submit any representation against the entries recorded in his APAR for the period, 2012-2013. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given opportunity to represent against "adverse" remark in his APAR for the period, 2012-2013. The petitioner instead of representing against the "adverse" remark, had vide his letter dated 03.10.2013 requested to the Directorate General, C.R.P.F. to elucidate whether the remark for the period from 09.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 was applicable for the whole year i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 or otherwise. It is submitted by Mr. Keyal, by referring to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the Reporting Authority had endorsed "adverse" remark which was within his competency and the Reviewing Authority endorsed no comment on the said "adverse" remark. The Accepting Authority had agreed both of his Part APARs and endorsed with remark - "Overall Very Good". Therefore, the Accepting Authority did not expunge the "adverse" remark of the Reporting Authority but only upgraded the Grading in the APAR from "Good" to "Very Good". It was, however, pursuant to a noting dated 11.01.2017 of the Ministry of Home Affairs the decision to convene the Review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with respect to the DPC dated 15.04.2015 and further, with respect to the DPC dated 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 and the vacancy year : 2016- 2017 respectively was taken on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, submitted on 15.07.2016. Accordingly, the Review DPC was convened on 19.04.2017 but the Review DPC also did not find him suitable for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. and the recommendations of the DPC were accepted by the Competent Authority on 07.06.2017. It is submitted by him that DPC can make an independent assessment of the matter, as per the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2008 of the DoP&T, Government of India, a copy of which he has placed on record. When pursuant to the order dated 09.10.2017 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court the petitioner submitted the representation on 03.11.2017 the same was examined with all the facts and figures of the case and finding the same to be devoid of merit, it stood rejected by the order dated 10.05.2018 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the letter no. P.VII-2/2013-Pers-DA-I dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure-W to the affidavit-in-opposition).

Page No. 11/24

18. Mr. Keyal has also referred to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court -

(i) Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 ; (ii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Srikant Chaphekar, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 689 ; (iii) Anil Katiyar (Mrs) vs. Union of India and others and another, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 280 ; (iv) Union of India and another vs. A.K. Narula, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 ; (v) Nutan Arvind (Smt) vs. Union of India and another, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 488 ; and (vi) State Bank of India and others vs. Mohd. Mynuddin, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 486 ; besides the decision in Dev Dutt (supra). He has also submitted a Synopsis of Written Arguments and placed the records of the DPCs and Review DPC, for perusal.

19. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials made available in the records of the case.

20. By the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2008, the DoP&T, Government of India has provided revised guidelines containing instructions on "benchmark" for assessment of performance and the manner in which select panel has to be arranged on the basis of inter- se seniority, subject to achievement of "benchmark" for promotion to various levels of posts/grade. It is provided therein that in order to ensure greater selectivity at higher levels of administration, the DPC may ensure that for the promotion to the scale of Rs. 18,400/- - Rs. 22,400/- and above, the prescribed benchmark of "Very Good" is invariably met in all Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of 5 (five) years under consideration. The DPC, in terms of the guidelines of the DoP&T, Government of India, is required to make its own assessment on the basis of entries in those ACRs and not be guided merely by the overall Grading. In cases where the assessment by the DPCs are not apparently in line with the grade in the ACRs, the DPC should appropriately substantiate its assessments by giving reasons, so that the Appointing Authority could factor those while taking a view on the suitability of officer for promotion. Thus, it is not in dispute that for promotion from the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. an officer must have benchmark Grading of "Very Good" in all APARs for the preceding 5 (five) years under consideration.

21. When the DPC was convened on 22.01.2013 for the vacancy year : 2013-2014 for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F., the DPC considered the APARs of the officers in the panel for the preceding 5 (five) years from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. In the said DPC, the Page No. 12/24 case of the petitioner was also considered. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the Grading in the APAR for him for the year : 2008-2009 was not "Very Good", but only "Good". Thus, the petitioner cannot say that his case was not rightly considered by the DPC on 22.01.2013. It was in view of the above, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had also observed that the DPC when met on 22.01.2013, made recommendations for promotion on the basis of entries of the past 5 (five) years prior to 2013 and in those years, the petitioner did not have 5 (five) "Very Good" entries, while dismissing the writ petition, C.M.W.P. No. 46876/2017, by the order dated 09.10.2017. As the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner commenced with the Memorandum dated 05.03.2008 and the same was pending on 22.01.2013 the case of the petitioner was kept in sealed covers.

22. When the DPC was convened on 20.06.2014 for the vacancy year : 2014-2015 for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. and the DPC considered the APARs for the preceding 5 (five) years of 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, the APAR for the year : 2008-2009 where the petitioner did not have "Very Good" Grading, was still a part of the 5 (five) APARs under consideration. The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner stood culminated by then, with the order dated 09.04.2013 imposing penalty of reduction of pay by one stage upon the petitioner and when the DPC sat on 20.06.2014, the effect of the said penalty was in existence. Non-empanelment of the petitioner for promotion by the DPC convened on 20.06.2014 cannot, thus, be considered to have suffered from any infirmity in view of the fact that the petitioner did not meet the benchmark of "Very Good" Gradings in the APARs for the preceding 5 (five) years of 2008-2009 to 2012-2013.

23. By the time the DPC convened on 15.04.2015 to consider the matter of promotion from the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. for the vacancy year : 2015- 2016, the order of penalty dated 09.04.2013 whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage was imposed upon the petitioner, was set aside and quashed by the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thus, on the date of consideration of the case of the petitioner i.e. on 15.04.2015 by the DPC, there existed no order of penalty upon the petitioner. The APARs that were under consideration before the DPC, were for the 5 (five) years' period from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014, with the APAR for the year : 2008-2009 where the petitioner did not have a "Very Good" Grade, out of the purview. Subsequently, the DPC Page No. 13/24 met on 29.04.2016 to consider the matter of promotion for the vacancy year : 2016-2017 by taking into consideration the APARs of the preceding 5 (five) years from 2010-2011 to 2014- 2015. In both these DPCs, held on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016, the case of the petitioner was found not suitable and the basis of the petitioner being found "Unfit" was the APAR for the year 2012-2013.

24. It was in such factual matrix obtaining in the present case, further rival contentions of the parties are required to be considered. The situation can be summarized in a tabular form as under :-

        Date of DPC    Vacancy Year          APARs under consideration for the DPC
         15.04.2015       2015-2016    2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014
         29.04.2016       2016-2017    2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015

It is the case of the petitioner that he had the following Gradings in his APARs for the years from 2009-2010 to 2014-2015 : -

                              Year of APAR              Grading
                               2009-2010               Very Good
                               2010-2011               Very Good
                               2011-2012               Very Good
                               2012-2013               Very Good
                               2013-2014              Outstanding
                               2014-2015              Outstanding

Save and except for the Grading of the year 2012-2013, the respondent Authorities have not raised any dispute as regards the Gradings for the other years. Thus, the only issue that has been the bone of contention between the parties is the APAR prepared for the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013, the contents of which have already been indicated above.

25. The matter of communication and non-communication of entries/remarks including adverse entries/remarks, is extensively discussed in Dev Dutt (supra). It is observed therein that in most services there is a gradation of entries, which is usually (i) Outstanding, (ii) Very Good, (iii) Good, (iv) Average, (v) Fair, and (vi) Poor. Every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, Page No. 14/24 whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a benchmark or not. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future; and (2) he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its up-gradation. When the entry is communicated to an employee, the employee has a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period.

26. At this stage, it is apt to refer to the other decisions relied on by the parties.

26.1 In Sunil Dutt (supra), the appellant was a member in the Haryana Police, who was conveyed adverse remark for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 on 07.09.2007 in view of his implication in a case registered on 05.02.2007, inter-alia, under Sections 7/13, Prevention of Corruption Act. Pursuant thereto, a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him on 08.02.2007. In the criminal case, the appellant was acquitted by the Court of Special Judge on 08.02.2008 and in the disciplinary proceeding, he was exonerated on 02.04.2009. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the material on the basis of which the adverse remark was given by the Reporting Officer and had found that the very basis of the adverse remark had already been extinguished due to acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case and his exoneration in the disciplinary proceeding. It has further held that as the basis of recording adverse remark does not survive the said remark deserves to be expunged. In Gopal Singh Rathore (supra), there was a remark in the ACR of the petitioner that he had to be kept under watch but there was nothing further to show as to for what reason he was required to be kept under watch. As there was no reason assigned, the remark that the petitioner be kept under watch, has been held to be not adverse and the denial of promotion to the petitioner was found to be unjustified and arbitrary.

26.2 In Badrinath (supra), it is held that the power of judicial review in dealing with assessment made by DPCs is limited and the Courts and Tribunals can neither sit as appellate authorities nor substitute their own views to the views of DPCs. But at the same time, the Page No. 15/24 consideration of an officer for his case for promotion by the DPCs must be fair according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. The decision in Srikant Chaphekar (supra) is also about the limited role of the Court in respect of the remarks in the ACR and in a case where the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that a person was not considered for promotion or the consideration was illegal then the only direction which can be given is to consider his case in accordance with law. The decision in Anil Katiyar (supra) is also with regard to the limited scope of judicial review of the merits of a selection by the DPC and such role is not that of an appellate authority. It is observed that the selection made by the DPC can be examined on the ground whether the same has been vitiated by mala fides on the ground of it being arbitrary. The reliance in A. K. Narula (supra) is placed to highlight the proposition that a certain amount of play in the joints is permitted to the DPC in that it need not be guided by the overall grading in the ACRs, and it may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs. It is also observed that when the process of assessment by the DPC is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, then the selection calls for interference and if there is no arbitrariness in the process of DPC, the Court shall not interfere. The decision in Nutan Arvind (supra) has reiterated the afore-mentioned propositions. It is observed in Mohd. Mynuddin (supra) that if promotion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the Government or the statutory authority to consider the case of the officer concerned for promotion and the Court should not ordinarily issue a writ to the Government or the statutory authority to promote an officer straight away.

27. As has been mentioned above, the APAR of the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013 was prepared in 2 (two) parts. It is the first part of the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012 in respect of which the entire issue is hovered around. It is averred by the respondents that the photo copy of the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 was furnished to the petitioner vide a letter No. G.II-1/2013-CRC dated 13.09.2013, for his information and submission of representation, if any. It is also averred that by the same, the petitioner "was given opportunity to represent against the adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 2012- 2013" and no representation was submitted by the petitioner against the entries recorded in his APAR for the year : 2012-2013. Though the said letter dated 13.09.2013 has been stated Page No. 16/24 to have been annexed as Appendix-I to the affidavit-in-opposition, the same is not found annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. Appendix-I is found to be a confidential communication bearing no. G.II-1/2013-CRC dated 17.11.2013 of the Director General, C.R.P.F., addressed to the Special Director General, Central Zone, C.R.P.F., Kolkata. The petitioner has, however, admitted the receipt of the letter dated 13.09.2013, by stating that by the said letter dated 13.09.2013 the photocopy of the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 was forwarded to him. During the course of hearing, a copy of the letter dated 13.09.2013 is placed on record. The contents of the same are extracted herein below :-

            "To                                             Dated, the 13th September, 2013
                  Shri S. C. Parashar, DIG, IRLA-2223,
                  Central Sector HQr., CRPF.
                  (Through IG Central Sector CRPF)

Subject:- COMMUNICATION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (APAR).

In accordance with the instructions on the subject issued by the GOI, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel & Trg.) vide their O.M. No. 21011/1/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II) dated 13/05/09, I am directed to enclose a photocopy of your APAR for the period from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 (year 2012-13).

2. If you wish to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the report, the same be submitted within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this communication by you. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the report leading to your assessment in terms of attributes, work output etc. In case no representation is received within 15 days, it shall be deemed that you have no representation to make. Representation received after expiry of stipulated period as above, will not be accepted.

3. A copy of this letter may please be returned to this office duly acknowledged.

Encl : 13 leaves.

(Madan Mohan) D/C For DIGP (CR & Vig)"

Page No. 17/24

28. From the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 13.09.2013, it can be very well be noticed that there is nothing there which had specifically indicated that there was anything adverse in the APAR of the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013. When the petitioner found that the Accepting Authority had recorded the remark to the effect that he had reviewed the APAR of the petitioner himself, with his concluding remark "Overall Very Good" on 20.06.2013, and there was a Pen-Picture, quoted above, reported by the Reporting Authority in the APAR about the performance of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012, the petitioner having found some ambiguity, by his communication dated 03.10.2013 had sought the clarification from the Director General, C.R.P.F. by requesting him to elucidate whether the remark for the Reviewing Authority cum Accepting Authority was applicable for the whole year i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 or otherwise. Such clarification was sought for by the petitioner after having noticed that the Reviewing Authority had not reviewed the performance of the petitioner in the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 08.10.2012.

29. From the Pen-Picture, extracted above, reported by the Reporting Authority, it is not possible to infer as to whether the second part of it was an adverse remark in respect of the petitioner when in the first part it was remarked that the performance of the petitioner is generally good. As the benchmark of "Very Good" in all the APARs for the preceding 5 (five) years is the requirement for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion from the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F., the petitioner in order to remove the qualms about the actual implication of the entries contained in the said APAR for the year :

2012-2013 had sought the clarification vide his letter dated 03.10.2013 because in the event he had been granted the Grading of "Very Good" for the entire year : 2012-2013 there would be no occasion and reason to him to make any representation as a Grading of "Very Good"

for the year : 2012-2013 would meet the benchmark requirement for consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher cadre, unless he strongly feels that he should have been given the highest grading i.e. "Outstanding."

30. It is reported in the above-referred confidential communication dated 17.11.2013 that the Grading "Very Good" would be applicable for the whole year : 2012-2013 and it was ordered that the same should be apprised to the petitioner. It was by the communication Page No. 18/24 dated 02.01.2014 of the office of the Inspector General, Central Sector, C.R.P.F. the petitioner was communicated about the response of the Director General, C.R.P.F. who is the Accepting Authority, to the communication dated 03.10.2013 made by him, as under :-

             "To                                               Dated, the     Jan' 2014
                Shri S. C. Parashar
                DIG Range, CRPF
               Amethi
                GC CRPF Campus Lucknow

             Subject: APAR FINAL GRADING FOR 2012-13

Copy of Spl DG, CZ, office letter No. A.XII/2013-AC(PS) dated 17/12/2013 addressed to his re-produced below :-

Shri S.C. Paarashar, DIGP, Range Amethi of your Sector had sought a clarification to Dte GenL CRPF vide his Secret signal No.A.XII-1/2013-PF dated 03/101/2013, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

2. As clarified by Dte Genl vide their office letter No.G.II-1/2013-CRC dtd 13/11/2013, though his APAR was written in two parts with different final gradings his overall final grading for the entire 2012-13 APAR will be "Very Good" Shri S. C. Parashar, DIGP of your Hqrs may kindly be informed accordingly.

3. This is for your information please.

Encl: One Sd/-

(BHANU PRATAP SINGH) DIG (Adm) CS CRPF Lucknow 02.01.2014"

31. In view of the aforesaid clarification received from the Director General, C.R.P.F. i.e. the Accepting Authority, all the doubts, ambiguities and qualms about the implication of the entries including the Pen-Picture for the first part, contained in the APAR for the year : 2012- 2013 and the Grading for the year : 2012-2013 given to the petitioner stood removed and cleared. In view of such clarification, there was no occasion and reason for the petitioner to make any representation in respect of the APAR for the year 2012-2013 when there is no "adverse" remark for him therein. If the Reviewing Authority or the Accepting Authority, as the case may be, after due consideration of the report, given by the Reporting Authority or the Reviewing Authority, as the case may be, makes any remark and report it is the remark and report of the higher authority which is to be taken as the final remark and report for the Page No. 19/24 purpose of assessment. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the remark given by the Reporting Authority in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2012-2013 had existed any more after the final remark and report of the Accepting Authority. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner though granted opportunity, did not submit any representation against the alleged "adverse" remark in the APAR for the period : 2012-2013 cannot be countenanced. In the similar vein, the submission that the Accepting Authority did not expunge the "adverse" remarks of the Reporting Authority but only upgraded the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 from "Good" to "Very Good" is also not acceptable.

32. It is pertinent to mention that by order dated 20.11.2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had set aside and quashed the order of penalty dated 09.04.2013 and the respondents had taken the conscious decision to abide by the same and accordingly, complied with the same by not assailing the said order dated 20.11.2014 in any manner. As a result, even if the said alleged "adverse" remark in the first part of the APAR of the petitioner for the year : 2012- 2013 was considered to be due to initiation of the disciplinary proceeding by the Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated 05.03.2008 and its pendency then the same cannot be held to have existed any more in view of the removal of the foundation itself.

33. A plea has been taken on behalf of the respondents that the DPC has the right to make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the ACRs and it is not guided merely by the overall Grading and for the said plea, reference is made to the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2008. To substantiate such plea that the DPC while finding the petitioner "Unfit", had made its own assessment in its meetings held on 20.06.2014, 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016 for the vacancy years of 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 respectively as well as in the Review DPC held on 19.04.2017 for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. with respect to the DPCs for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 and the vacancy year : 2016-2017 once again, the records of the said DPCs and the Review DPC are placed on record. It is also worthwhile to reiterate, even at the cost of repetition, that the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2008 has specified that where the assessment by the DPCs are apparently not in line with the Grades in the ACRs, the DPC should appropriately substantiate its assessments by giving reasons, so that the Appointing Authority could factor Page No. 20/24 those while taking a view on the suitability of the officer for promotion.

34. A discussion about the DPC convened on 20.06.2014 for the vacancy year : 2014-2015 has already been made above. On perusal of the Minutes of the meeting of the DPC convened on 15.04.2015 for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 it goes to show that the DPC with reference to the prescribed benchmark, relevant records including the APARs, etc. had graded the petitioner who was at serial no. 1 amongst the 12 (twelve) candidates within the zone of consideration for 4 (four) vacancies, as "Unfit". But there was no discussion as to why the DPC had assessed the petitioner as "Unfit". In the DPC meeting convened on 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2016-2017 for filling up 2 (two) vacancies in the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F., it had considered the cases of 8 (eight) candidates within the zone of consideration with the petitioner at serial no. 1. In the Minutes of the DPC held on 29.04.2016, the DPC had again with reference to the prescribed benchmark, the relevant records including the APARs, etc., had assessed the petitioner as "Unfit". There was again no discussion as to why the petitioner was found "Unfit" for promotion. When a perusal is made of the Minutes of the Review DPC convened on 19.04.2017 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. with respect to the DPC dated 15.04.2015 and the DPC dated 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 and for the vacancy year : 2016- 2017 respectively, it is noticed that the Review DPC had noted about the imposition of penalty on the petitioner by the order dated 09.04.2013 and also about the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court whereby the said order of penalty dated 09.04.2013 was set aside and quashed. It also took note of the order dated 03.02.2016 whereby the respondent authorities had decided to abide by the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Review DPC had also considered about the alleged "adverse" remark, recorded by the Reporting Authority, in the first part of the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 and the subsequent events thereto. It had observed that the petitioner did not make any representation despite the fact that the copy of the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 was made available to him and as a result, the alleged "adverse" remark remained in the APAR of the petitioner. Then, the Review DPC having regard to the fact that the earlier DPCs had taken into account the remark against the petitioner in his APAR for the year 2012-2013 as "adverse" as the same was not expunged, it did not find any cogent reason to intervene and Page No. 21/24 therefore, did not consider the petitioner "Fit" for promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. The DPC convened on 14.11.2017 to consider the cases of promotion to the rank of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. for the vacancy year : 2017-2018 had also found the petitioner "Unfit" though the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 in the zone of consideration.

35. The Minutes of the DPCs held on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016, as has been indicated above, did not contain any discussion as to why the petitioner was found "Unfit". It did not take into consideration the clarification provided by the Director General, C.R.P.F. by his letter dated 02.01.2014 and also did not take into consideration that in view of such clarification provided by the Accepting Authority himself, the petitioner had no reason to make any representation against the entries in the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 as there was no "adverse" remark in the said APAR. Once again at the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the DPC though can make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the ACRs for which, it may not be guided merely by the overall Grading but while making such assessment by the DPC if its assessment is not in line with the grades in the ACRs, it should appropriately substantiate its assessment by giving reasons. As has been discussed above, the Review DPC held on 19.04.2017 was merely guided by the fact that the earlier 2 (two) DPCs held on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 and the vacancy year : 2016- 2017 had taken into account the remark against the petitioner in the APAR for the year :

2012-2013 as "adverse" as the same were not expunged. Thus, the Review DPC did not make any kind of assessment of his own on the basis of the entries in the APAR of the petitioner for the year : 2012-2013. On the other hand, it is found that the DPC convened on 15.04.2015 for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 and the DPC convened on 29.04.2016 for the vacancy year : 2016-2017 did not substantiate its assessment as to why the petitioner was found "Unfit" by providing reasons. In the Minutes of the DPC convened on 14.11.2017, the DPC did not discuss anything as to why the petitioner was found "Unfit" for promotion. Without assignment of any valid and cogent reason, it is not open for the DPC to resurrect something which has already been given a burial by the highest authority itself because with the grant of "Overall Very Good" Grading by the Reviewing Authority cum Accepting Authority for the entire year : 2012-2013, anything recorded by any subordinate authority like the Reporting Authority, stood automatically erased.

Page No. 22/24

36. In the decision in East Coast Railway and another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, reported in 2010 7 SCC 678, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is not precise statutory or other definition of the term "arbitrary". The true import of the expression "arbitrariness" is more easily visualized than precisely stated or defined and that whether or not an act is arbitrary would be determined on the facts and circumstances of the given case.

Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or from the records contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by the disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the records contemporaneously maintained in clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of the guarantee contained in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

37. In the present case, the Minutes of the DPC held on 19.04.2017 is found to have suffered from non-application of mind as it was merely guided by the assessment made by the earlier DPCs held on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016 respectively and it did not consider the relevant records placed before it, in the proper perspective. The DPCs held on 15.04.2015 and 29.04.2016 respectively, on the other hand, did not substantiate its assessment as to why the petitioner was found "Unfit" by providing any reason, much less valid and cogent reason. None of the DPCs and the Review DPC had recorded any reason as to why the grant of overall Grading of "Very Good" by the Accepting Authority did not efface the alleged "adverse" remark of the Reporting Authority from the APAR of the petitioner for the year :

2012-2013 and despite such effacement, as to why the same can be treated to be in existence. Such non-recording of reason and taking of a view which is to the detriment of the petitioner to bring in "adverse" civil consequences in the form of denial of chance of his promotion and, that too, without affording any kind of opportunity to the petitioner who is under a bona fide belief for a valid reason that there is nothing "adverse" in the APAR for the Page No. 23/24 year : 2012-2013 is clearly arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable. For the very same reason, the Minutes of the DPC convened on 14.11.2017 is found to be arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable. The impugned order dated 10.05.2008, which is extracted already hereinabove, also suffers from the same reason of sheer non-application of mind as the competent authority did not take notice of the fact that none of the DPCs and the Review DPC had assigned any reason, when it had chosen to make a departure from the Grading of "Overall Very Good" given by the Accepting Authority.

38. In view of the above discussions and observations, the impugned communication dated 05.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 10.05.2018, which are founded, inter-alia, on the basis of the DPC held on 15.04.2015, the DPC held on 29.04.2016, the Review DPC held on 19.04.2017 and the DPC held on 14.11.2017 are held to be arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable and are found liable to be set aside and be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 05.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 10.05.2018 are set aside and quashed.

39. For all the vacancy years - 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 - the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 in the zone of consideration empanelled for filling up vacancies in the ratio of 1:4. But on all the occasions the petitioner was found to be "Unfit" for the one and only reason, indicated above, which has been found to be arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable. As a result of such non-consideration of the case of the petitioner which is found arbitrary and unfair, a number of persons who were junior to the petitioner in the rank of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. got promoted in the meantime. From the discussions above, the petitioner is found to have gradings of either "Very Good" or "Outstanding" in his APARs for the period from 2009- 2010 to 2014-2015.

40. In the above fact situation obtaining in the present case, a direction to convene a Review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner again in the light of the above observations as regards the APAR for the year : 2012-2013 is found to be justified. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is going to be retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2019. In such view of the matter, it is ordered that the respondent authorities shall convene a Review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank cadre of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. for the vacancy year : 2015-2016 onwards by taking into consideration the Page No. 24/24 observations made hereinabove, and if after such consideration, the petitioner is found "Fit" for promotion to the rank and cadre of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. then the respondent authority shall further consider to promote the petitioner from such date when his junior officer(s) was/were promoted for the purpose of restoring his seniority in the rank, grade and cadre of I.G.P., C.R.P.F. Upon due consideration of the facts that the petitioner was arbitrarily and unfairly found "Unfit" for promotion right from the DPC held on 15.04.2015 till the last DPC held on 14.11.2017 with no delay attributable to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, and that he is going to retire on superannuation on and from 31.12.2019, it is ordered that the entire process, indicated above, should invariably be completed prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner on superannuation i.e. 31.12.2019. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court