Basti Ram v. Union of India and Ors

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2015, passed by the respondent/CRPF rejecting his representation against the grading of 'Average' granted to him between the period 09.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 and further, he has prayed for directions to the respondent to hold a review DPC to consider his case for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector upontreating his ACR in question as 'Very Good'.

2. On 11.12.2017, the following order was passed by this Court: "1. Mr. Goyal, learned CGSC for the respondents states that the Department hasforwarded the original W.P.(C) 740/2017 2018:DHC:8806-DB o records relating to the ACR ofthe petitionerfor the year 2012-13 as also of the DPC held for the post of SI. He states that contrary to the specific averments made by the petitioner in para 2(xv) & Ground (I) of the writ petition to the effect that the adverse remarks of "AVERAGE" dated March, 2013 were only communicated to him in the month ofNovember, 2013 i.e., after an alleged excessive delay of 8 months, the records reveal that the petitioner hadpersonally received a copy ofthe ACR in question on 08.05.2013. When confronted with the above position, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to obtain instructionsfrom his client.

2. Ifwhat has been recorded is correct, then we make it clear that we shall hear learned counsel for the petitioner on merits only after he is able to explain the conduct of the petitioner in withholding material informationfrom the court.

3. Relevant records shall be kept handy on the next date ofhearing.

4. List on 18.04.2018."

3. On 18.04.2018, directions were issued to the petitioner to appear in person. Further, the respondent was directed to produce the relevant records relating to the manner in which the ACR for the year 2012-2013, was communicated to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed an affidavit of the petitioner on 06.04.2018, wherein he has denied having received the adverse remarks of 'Average' dated March, 2013 from the respondent C.R.P.F, on 08.05.2013 and states that ''his signatures are either forged, or obtained under misrepresentation and hence the same requires a thorough investigation in the interest ofjustice. " Mr. Vivek Goyal, learned counsel for the respondenthands over the original records for our perusal.

4. We have perused the original records relating to the petitioner that reveals an endorsement under the signatures of the petitioner of having received his APAR report for the period 09.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had received the aforesaid document under his signatures and had specifically recorded in vernacular language (hindi) that the APAR dated 09.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 has been received by him. Not only does the said document indicate that the petitioner had received the APAR report for the relevant period, he has also endorsed the details of his force number and the place where he was posted at the relevant point of time.

5. We have specifically asked the petitioner, who is present in person, to state where he was posted/attached at the relevant point of time. He states that he was posted at ATC CRPF, Taralu, Bangalore, Karnataka. This is the very same place that has been mentioned in long hand on the face of the record. We find no justification to disbelieve the documents produced by the respondent, whichamply demonstrate that the petitionerhad received his APAR report from 09.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. The evasive stand taken by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 06.04.2018, to the effect that his signatures on the document in question is either forged, or obtained under misrepresentation, isnothing but anexcuse to overcome thedelay in seeking legal recourse. Where would be the question of misrepresentation in respect of the furnishing of documents and thattoorelating to theAPAR W.P.(C)740/2017 report for the relevant period. No mala-fides can be attributed to the respondents on this count.

6. We decline to entertain the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands and withheld material information. The petition is accordingly dismissed. We are refraining from imposing costs on the petitioner while cautioning him to be more careful in future. HIMA KOHLI, J. REKH