While in service, the respondent was issued Director Generals displeasure on 27th March, 1984 and 25th February, 1998 for number observing laid down procedure in disposal of companydemned vehicles and for irregularities in fabrication of recovery vehicles, respectively.
The bias and malafide acts can be adjudged only on the basis of evidence.
For the ACR of 1996 97, the respondent was graded Very Good by the Initiating Officer as well as Reviewing Officer, but the appellant number 3 E.N.Ram Mohan who was the Accepting Officer, down graded the ACR as Good without recording any reason.
It is further companytended that the record produced before the High Court also revealed that appellant number3 E.N. Ram Mohan who took over as Director General, BSF, down graded ACRs of the respondent for the years 1997 98 and 1998 99 to Good companytrary to the grading given by Initiating Officer and Reviewing Officer that too without assigning any reason there for, companytrary to the instructions dated 3rd December, 1991.
Thereafter, the respondent became Commandant as Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade got merged with effect from 1st October, 1997.
The down graded ACRs of the respondent for the years 1997 98 and 1998 99 were never companymunicated to him.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 21st August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in Writ Petition Civil No.
The respondent was promoted as Second in command in 1990 and became Commandant Ordinary Grade on 9th February, 1993.
After companysideration, the name of respondent, having number found fit, was number recommended by the DPC.
The assessment of Character Roll by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as Good cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was biased against the person whose Character Roll is assessed.
However, the Director General, BSF, undoing the damage, graded the respondent as Very Good.
It was submitted that the ACRs of 1994 95 and 1995 96, respondent was graded Very Good by the Initiating Officer IO Reviewing Officer RO as well as Accepting Authority AO .
The bench mark for promotion from the rank of Commandant to Addl.
DIG by the DPC companystituted for such purpose.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition Civil No.
He imputed this to be malafide act of Appellant No.3 E.N. Ram Mohan.
DIG in the BSF in the DPC held on 25th November, 2000 which companysidered the ACRs for the years 1994 95, 1995 96, 1996 97, 1997 98 and 1998 99.
He alleged that he fulfilled the criteria of having three Very Good out of five previous ACRs, yet persons junior to him were selected.
The bench mark Very Good has been defined in the instructions dated 6th February, 1991.
The High Court after perusal of the record, allowed the writ petition with the observation as mentioned above.
According to the appellants, as per paragraph 6.1.2.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J Leave granted.
In the instant case, there is numberhing on record to suggest that the appellant number 3 E.N. Ram Mohan was biased against the respondent.
On 25th January, 2000, the case of the respondent was companysidered for his promotion by selection to the Rank of Addl.
DIG is Very Good.
The appellants in their companynter affidavit denied the said allegations and brought to the numberice of the High Court the service record, decision taken by DPC and reasons for number recommending the name of the respondent.
3004 of 2000 before Delhi High Court challanging the decision of the said DPC.
Learned companynsel for the appellants made the following submissions to assail the judgment The High Court was number right in directing the appellants to grant promotion to the respondent rather than directing the appellants to reconsider the case under DPC and The High Court without any evidence, adjudicated disputed issue of malafide acts alleged against the appellant number 3 in writ jurisdiction while dealing with a service matter, particularly, in the case where allegation was made by a person who had vested interest in the allegation.
3004/2000.
Merely because he assessed the ACR of the respondent as Good as against assessment of Very Good made by I.O. it cannot be said that he was biased against the respondent.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The respondent S.P. Nayyar joined the Border Security Force BSF as an Assistant Commandant Technical in 1971 and was promoted as Deputy Commandant in the year 1981.
Learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was wrongly superseded in the matter of promotion from the rank of Commandant to the rank of Addl.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court after going through the relevant record including ACRs of respondent S.P. Nayyar, opined that due to personal bias of his superior officer, E.N.Ram Mohan, the respondent P. Nayyar was targeted and was wrongly superseded in the matter of departmental promotion and hence allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent directing the appellants to promote the respondent as Additional DIG with back wages with the following observations Under the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and direct the petitioner to be promoted as Addl.
