Hari Mohan Rathore v. Union of India & Anr.

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.:

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the letters dated 09th September, 2016 and 26th

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was a August, 2019 whereby the Respondent rejected the Petitioner’s representations for expunction of adverse remarks in the Petitioner’s ACR. Petitioner also challenges the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner based on the Petitioner’s A.C.R. of 2014-15. 2021:DHC:876-DB member of the CRPF and was posted as a company commander on 05th

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner sent a detailed representation against the impugned ACR grading but the same were rejected by the Respondents, without dealing with the same in detail. August 2014. He states that adverse entries were made in the A.C.R. of the Petitioner by the then Commandant that the behaviour of the Petitioner with subordinates is not proper and that the Petitioner allegedly practices regionalism and casteism. He further states that in the ACR, it was also stated that Petitioner was not a good officer and required supervision. He states that the Petitioner had been given grading of "Below Good" and the Reviewing Officer agreed with the grading of the Reporting Officer and the aforesaid entries were communicated to the Petitioner.

5. A perusal of the paper book reveals the pen picture of the Petitioner by the Reporting officer is as under:- “Shri Harimohan Singh Rathore, Assistant Commandant is tendency of misusing, discoursing and manhandling subordinates and soldiers. Officer is not neutral towards regionalism and casteism. During his short-term tenure of Company Commandant, one solider tried to throw the rifle on him and another solider tried to commit suicide. In both the matter, departmental inquiry has been conducted. Officer was found totally incompetent to keep the tradition. It would be better to keep watch on the officer if he is given full command. During the reporting period, the work and behaviour of the officer was "Below Good".”

6. The pen picture contains detailed reasons warranting a downgrade as no officer of a Central Para Military Force can discriminate on grounds of caste or region. Further, both the Reviewing and Accepting Officers have agreed with the view of the Reporting Officer. Consequently, the adverse remarks and downgrading of the petitioner is based on the unanimous views of Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Officers.

7. Even the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Director General, Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that no justifiable reason for expunction of adverse remarks has been made out.

8. It is settled law that this court is not expected to play the role of an appellate authority or an umpire in the acts and proceedings of the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities and that it should not sit in judgment over the authority deciding the representation unless the decisions are assailed as being vitiated by mala fides or on the ground of being arbitrary. Since that case is not made out in the present matter, this Court is of the opinion that no interference with the unanimous view of the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Officers is called for.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed.

10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J ASHA MENON, J MARCH 08, 2021 AS