Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 46 (JK)

Rajiv Ranjan (Capt. ) v. Union Of India

2000-02-28

T.S.DOABIA

body2000
1) The adverse confidential reports for the year, 1992 i.e. beginning from January, 1992 to the end of December, 1992 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner submits that the same Officer assessed the petitioner in the earlier year and rated him as "Outstanding". The same officer for the same criteria has rated him as "Below Average". The extract of the ACR in respect of the year 1991 is being reproduced below: "Extract of ACR is respect of 1C 43806 N Capt. Rajiv Ranjan for the year 1993. ART- II Personal Qualities, demonstrated performance and special achievements. Quality/variable 10 11. a) Appearance & bearing 7 b) Personal conduct 7 c) Intefrity & loyality 8 d) Physical fitness & 8 Mental robustness e) Expression (verbal & written) 7 f) Ability to execute 7 assigned tasks g) Leadership and man management 7 12. Games, sports and special achievements (To be completed by 10 only) Specify below in case the officer has participated in games and sports and/ or has only special achievements to his credit. a) Games/ sports Level of participation Unit information (service national) Hockey - b) Special achievements (Such as professional) in any outdoor activity, adventurous pursuite or any other field". 2) Again, an extract of ACR of the year 1992 is also being reproduced below: "In extract from ACR for the year 1992 in respect of TC-43806 N Capt. Rajeev Ranjan of 7 FD Regt. (Gazala) Part-ll Personal qualities, demonstrated performance and special achievements. In case assessment in any quality in average or lower than average. Justification is required at Paras 13 and 15 by 10 respectively. Quality/ Variable Assessment 11 (a) Appearance & bearing IO RO (b) Personal conduct 11 12 13 14 c) Integrity & loyalty 15 15 d) Physical fitness & 17 18 mental robustness e) Expression (verbal & 19 written) 5 f) Ability to execute 21 22 assigned tasks g) Leadership and man 23 24 management 1 12. Games, sports and special achievements. (To be completed by 10 only) Specify below in case the officer has participated in Games aNd Sports and/ or has only special achievements to his credit". 3) A perusal of the above would indicate that for the year 1991 for "Appearance and Bearing", the petitioner was given seven points, whereas for the same factor, the petitioner was given five points for the latter year. 3) A perusal of the above would indicate that for the year 1991 for "Appearance and Bearing", the petitioner was given seven points, whereas for the same factor, the petitioner was given five points for the latter year. For personal conduct, he was given seven points for the year 1991, but for the latter year he was given one point. Again for integrity and loyalty the petitioner was given eight points for 1991 but was given one point for the latter year. For physical fitness and mental robustness, the petitioner was given eight points for the year 1991, but for the latter year he has been given four points. For expression (Verbal and Written) ability to execute assigned tasks and leadership and management, he was given seven points each for the year 1991. For these qualities he was given 5,3 and 1 points in latter year. The petitioner submits that there could not be quantitative and qualitative degradation in the matter of his ability to perform duties. 4) It has been indicated that though physically fit, but he is not mentally resolute. It has been stated that he cannot endure for long physical and mental stress and strain. It has also been pointed out that he was unable to keep pace during op. oriented collective fitness. The note appended with the Annual Confidential Reports is being reproduced below: "A 27 years old bachelor who though physically fit is mentally not resolute. He cannot endure prolonged physical and mental stress and strain. He was unable to keep pace within during operation oriented collective fitness. He loses his temper easily and gets into arguments with all. He does not respect officer. The Officer has displayed a lack of pride in the writ. He is given to making sweeping wild statements about service condition and has shown an abnormal interest in entertaining an assortment of women. This trait of the officer is fraught with security risks. A habitual maligner he is constantly trying to evade bonafide duties. His conduct has been nOT officer like. The officer lacks integrity and moral courage and never accepts his mistakes. He has confessed his desire to leave the service. The officer is unlikely to improve and is not considered fit for retention in service". 5) The petitioner stands dubbed as a habitual maligner and consequently trying to evade bonafide duties. His conduct has been nOT officer like. The officer lacks integrity and moral courage and never accepts his mistakes. He has confessed his desire to leave the service. The officer is unlikely to improve and is not considered fit for retention in service". 5) The petitioner stands dubbed as a habitual maligner and consequently trying to evade bonafide duties. It has been pointed out that he lacks integrity and moral courage and does not accept his mistakes. The petitioner has attributed malafides also. Respondents have filed objections. 6) The stand taken by them is that the petitioner while enjoying mess facility was entertaining women in his single officer quarter at odd hours. This is said to be contrary to Rule 104 of the Army Stn. Mess. The first report regarding this is dated 8.7.1992. This has been repeated on 9.7.1992. The number and names of ladies who are said to have visited has been given in one of the annexure appended with the objections. This is for the period from 2.6.1992 to 8.7.1992. With regard to this very matter, the petitioner was apprised/ informed that an enquiry would be held and if it was found that there is infringement of the mess rules, he would be dealt with. He was called upon to show cause also. A letter in this regard was written to the petitioner on 21.7.1992. The explanation which was given by the petitioner is contained in his letter dated 23.7.1992. He admits that one lady was present in his room, but this accordingly to the petitioner happened when he was in the mess and the lady had of her own entered the room. He submits that he had politely requested the lady to leave and that lady did leave on this request having been made. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if this aspect of the matter that some ladies had visited the petitioner is taken as correct, even then this would not bring him down in the matter of integrity and loyalty. This will not bring him down in the matter of physical fitness and mental robustness. This would not as per the petitioner, bring him down in the matter of expression (verbal and written) ability to execute assigned tasks and leadership and management. This will not bring him down in the matter of physical fitness and mental robustness. This would not as per the petitioner, bring him down in the matter of expression (verbal and written) ability to execute assigned tasks and leadership and management. So far as integrity is concerned, again this would also be not normally affected by the conduct attributed to him. Unless it is brought on the record that on account of the visit of these ladies, the security aspect was in anyway affected, no adverse interference can be drawn. No moral delinquency has been attributed to the petitioner. 8) Again the use of the words that "the petitioner is a habitual maligner and is constantly trying to evade bonafide duties". is too strong an expression which if was to be brought on his service book, should be supported by some material on the record. If he was a habitual maligner, then this aspect of the matter should have been reflected in his previous confidential report also. 9) The word "habit" indicates a settled or a regular tendency or practice. It is such a practice which is hard to give up. It is a mental constitution or attitude. It is an automatic, reaction to specific situation. This is addicts in nature. The word "habit" stands defined in the Consice Oxford Dictionary 9th Volume as under: "1. A settled or regular tendency or practice. 2. a practice that is hard to give up 3. a mental constitution or attitude 4. an automatic reaction to practice, esp. of taking drugs 6. the dress of a particular class, esp. of a religious order (b) infull riding habit, a womans riding dress (c) archaic dress, attire 7) a bodily constitution. 10) Again, the word "habitual" also stands defined in the above dictionary, as under: "1. Done constantly or an a habit. 2. Regular usual 3. Given to a (specified) habit (a habitual smoker)". 11) A perusal of the above dictionary meaning of term "habit" and "habitual" makes it clear that if this expression*is to be used, then it must indicate that the concerned person is addicted to a particular practice. This is missing in this case. The fact that in the previous year nothing is mentioned regarding this trait of his character, cannot be ignored. This is missing in this case. The fact that in the previous year nothing is mentioned regarding this trait of his character, cannot be ignored. Therefore, without going into the question as to whether the Officer who wrote his report was actuated by malafide consideration. I am of the opinion that the confidential report so made for the year 1992 is not based on material available on the record. The same is, therefore, set aside leaving the respondents to re-assess the petitioner and thereafter make use of that confidential report for his further career.