Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
Heard Sri Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the opposite parties.
Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity of orders dated 30.6.1997, 25.6.1998, 12.5.2000 and 1.5.2001, contained in Annexure Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 to the writ petition.
In nutshell, the facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force [hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF'] on 26.9.1981. On considering the work, conduct and performance being satisfactory, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1987 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant in the year 1993. Subsequently, vide impugned letter dated 30.6.1997, it has been informed to the petitioner that for the period 1.4.1996 to 9.8.1996, eight adverse remarks have been recorded in the ADM ACR and as such, he was assessed as Below Average Officer. The adverse remarks are as under :
"(i) Lacks accuracy in written communication;
Against the above adverse remarks, petitioner preferred a representation dated 20.8.1997 to the Inspector General of Police, North-East Sector, CRPF Shillong, Meghalaya, who, vide order dated 25.6.1998, expunged above adverse remarks recorded at serial Nos. (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) in the letter dated 30.6.1997. So far as the adverse remarks recorded at (i), (v) and (vi) in the letter dated 30.6.1997 are concerned, the Inspector General of Police has observed that the said remarks are substantiated with the documentary evidence, fully justified and have been correctly recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1996 to 9.8.1996 and as such, these remarks will stand.
Not being satisfied with the order dated 25.6.1998, the petitioner preferred a representation/appeal dated 31.8.1998 to the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., CGO Complex, New Delhi, who, vide order dated 12.5.2000, rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a memorial dated 20.11.2000 to the Hon'ble President of India, New Delhi. The Additional D.I.G.P. (Pers.-I), New Delhi, vide letter dated 1.5.2001, informed the petitioner that adverse remarks recorded as at serial No.(i) in the order dated 30.6.1997 stands deleted and so far as adverse remarks recorded at serial Nos. (v) and (vi) are concerned, the same will be intact.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that though the petitioner has specifically mentioned in his representation that in respect of the allegations mentioned in the impugned adverse remarks, he demanded several relevant documents, but the same were not provided to the petitioner and the adverse remarks were recorded, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that before recording adverse remarks no warning or caution was issued to the petitioner in any manner and are not based on record and it is for this reason, out of eight remarks, six were expunged but the authorities erred in not deleting the remaining two adverse remarks, as the same were also not based on records but are based on the whims of the Officer. Moreover, the letter which has been referred in the counter affidavit showing issuance of warning is after the period for which adverse remarks have been recorded.
In P.K.Shastri v. State of M.P.(1999)7 SCC 329, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the CRs of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the officer and go to constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement held that authority making the remarks must first come to the conclusion that the factual situation is such that it is imperative to make such remarks to set right the wrong committed by the officer concerned.
In Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 305, the Apex Court observed that the entry in the confidential rolls should not be a reflection of personal whims, fancies or prejudices, likes or dislikes of a superior. The entry must reflect the result of an objective assessment coupled with an effort at guiding the judicial officers to secure an improvement in his performance where need be. In the subsequent paragraphs the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid emphasis on that fact that the entries either way have serious implication on the service career. Hence, there is need for fairness, justness and objectivity in performing the inspections and making the entries in the confidential rolls.
We would like to lay emphasis on the fact that any adverse remark in the CR's could mar the entire career of an officer, which had actually happened in the instant case too. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the authority awarding the adverse remarks to first come to a conclusion that the factual situation warrants that it is imperative to make such remarks to set right the wrong committed by the officer concerned and while taking such a decision, the authority concerned should carefully consider the materials, which are placed before him.
It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute in the fact that except the adverse remarks, referred to above, the entire career of the petitioner (26 years) remained unblemished. There is also no dispute in the fact that the aforesaid adverse remarks were recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1996 to 9.8.1996 (four months only). Out of eight adverse remarks, five remarks i.e. sl. nos. (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) were expunged vide order dated 25.6.1998 as nothing was found on record. Thereafter the adverse remark at column no.(i) was also deleted vide order dated 1st May, 2001. We find that the authorities have fell into error in not expunging the entire adverse remarks awarded to the petitioner when it is established that the same were not based on record. It appears that the authorities were swayed by the warning letter issued on 26.9.1996 but lost sight of the fact that it was for the subsequent to the period for which adverse remarks were recorded.
Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had already been given one rank promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant in the year 2003. Thus, once he has been promoted, the adverse entries, if any, stand washed out and there should not have been any legal impediment in not considering the petitioner for promotion on the next higher post.
Accordingly, the order dated 30.6.1997 so far as it relates to entry no. (v) and (vi) and the order dated 12.5.2000 are hereby quashed. It may be clarified that other adverse remarks mentioned in the aforesaid order have already been deleted by the respondents. The writ petition is allowed and the remaining two adverse entries i.e. sl. nos. (v) and (vi) shall also be treated to have been deleted from the character roll of the petitioner communicated through the order dated 30.6.1997. Consequences shall follow.
Dt.23.3.2012 Ajit/- [Devendra Kumar Arora,J.] [Rajiv Sharma, J.]