R.S. Khatri v. UOI & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Rule. D.B.

2. Heard for disposal.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse remarks communicated to him under cover of letter dated 31.12.2007 for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.

4. At the outset, we may note that the adverse remarks 2009:DHC:5605-DB communicated to the petitioner have not been filed by the petitioner with the writ petition. But, with reference to the record produced by the respondents, we have perused the same.

5. The adverse comments for the year 2004-05 were:- “having scope of achieving required standard of professionalism involved indiscipline/fraud case in his Coy which shows adverse reflection of his personality.”

6. The adverse remarks communicated for the year 2005- 06 were:- “officer has discharged his duties as Coy Comdr., which was just satisfactory as a result he was issued warning letter by I.G. and D.I.G.”

7. The petitioner submitted a response to the adverse entries communicated. The response was considered and the petitioner was informed that the ACR gradings are being maintained and that the adverse remarks would not be expunged from his ACR record.

8. The rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2007.

9. We note that inspite of opportunity granted to the petitioner, rejoinder affidavit has not been filed to the counter affidavit. We note that the petitioner has alleged mala fide against his Commandant in recording the adverse entries in his ACR gradings.

10. Record of the respondents shows that the Commandant was the Initiating Officer. The D.I.G. was Reviewing-cum- Accepting Officer and as a Reviewing-cum-Accepting Officer the D.I.G. has concurred with the ACR grading and the remarks given by the Initiating Officer.

11. In para 2 of the counter affidavit while replying the para 2 of the writ petition the response of the respondents is as under:- “Para 2. Contents of para 2 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was serving in 47 Bn. BSF under the command of Shri Sanjay Shiva. The allegations leveled by the petitioner against Commandant are not justified. If the petitioner was pressurized by the Commandant to obey his illegal orders, he should have brought these facts to the notice of his senior officer i.e. DIG/IG. The petitioner has made story of blank receipt for Rs. 800/- to cover up his indiscipline act and to divert the attention of senior officers from his lack of competency/professional knowledge. This matter has nothing to do with recording of adverse remark in his ACR. His performance was not only evaluated by his Commandant but also assessed by the DIG BSF who has also concurred with the remarks of Initiating Officer. The representations regarding adverse remarks endorsed in the ACR of petitioner were carefully and thoroughly examined by concerned IG and rejected being devoid of merits. The petitioner could not justify his allegations against his Commandant as such all his averments, allegations are false hence denied. It seems that petitioner is habitual in leveling allegations against his superiors. Moreover, the petitioner was also found blameworthy during Court of Inquiry conducted for various irregularities in Coy under his command. For this act of indiscipline and irregularity he was issued advice from DG BSF, IG’s displeasure, warning from DIG and Unit Commandant. The details of which are as under:- On 5th January, DG’s advice For exerting extraneous pressure through numerous sources for posting to Delhi during 2004-05. On 11th April, 2005 Unit Commandant’s Warning For creating Faux pas atmosphere in the Unit by passing information to Unit Adjutant that Shri R.S. Khatri, AC had died. On 6th May, Unit Commandnat’s Warning For Indulging in writing baseless allegations during 2004-05. On 20th May, 2005 IG’s Warning For committing an offence U/s 30(a). 30 (f) and 40 of BSF Act, 1968 during 2004-05. On 20th May, 2005 DIG’s Warning For creating hurdles in smooth functioning of unit affairs and leveling false allegations during 2004-05. On 23rd Dec. 2005 IG’s displeasure Found blameworthy for irregularities occurred in his Coy during 2004-05. Cutting of trees on border, irregular purchase without approval of Competent Authority and illegal procurement of Table and Chairs. This shows that petitioner has leveled allegation against his superiors to cover up his act of indiscipline and misappropriation. Hence all allegations leveled against the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner are false hence denied, as these could not be sustained by the petitioner.”

12. Suffice would it be to state that the warnings, displeasure and advice given to the petitioner is not only by the Commandant but even by the DIG as well as the IG.