S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT petition has been instituted by Dr. 10305 N Lt. Col. R. Saini canvassing the validity of the impugned orders dated 20. 12. 2000 bearing No. 01098/sb (M)/no. 3/2000/dgafms/denta-1 Annexure-3 to the petition. The reliefs sought are to quash the aforestated impugned orders by a writ of certiorari and to command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Colonel discounting the punishment inflicted on him in the year 1983 by a writ of mandamus. ( 2 ) SEQUENTIAL details of the case are that the petitioner was commissioned to Army Dental Corps (A. D. C.) on December 21, 1977. As captain in the A. D. C. , the petitioner was tried by General court-martial and the guilt of outraging the modesty of one Miss P. daughter of a Sqn. Ldr. in the family ward of Military Hospital, Jodhpur was brought home to him and accordingly, the general Court-martial commended forfeiture of 20 months service for the purpose of promotion and punishment of severe reprimand. The finding and sentence of the Court Martial received approbation of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief on February 8, 1985 and the sentence visited upon the petitioner was promulgated on 27. 2. 1985 in accordance with the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the rules made thereunder. ( 3 ) THOUGH the petitioner was visited with the penalties as aforestated while he was holding the rank of Captain, yet he earned promotion to the rank of Major with effect from July, 1986 and thereafter, he was granted next promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel on 21. 8. 1994 and was considered in his turn for promotion to the post of Colonel by the Selection Board (MD) No. 3 on 30. 8. 2000. Time scale promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel in Army Dental Corps. , it brooks no dispute, falls due after completion of 16 years of reckonable commissioned service "provided that the officer is recommended for such promotion" as visualised in para 66 (e) of the Defence services Regulations. 8. 2000. Time scale promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel in Army Dental Corps. , it brooks no dispute, falls due after completion of 16 years of reckonable commissioned service "provided that the officer is recommended for such promotion" as visualised in para 66 (e) of the Defence services Regulations. However, promotion to the next higher rank, i. e. , to the rank of Colonel and above, as envisaged in Regulation 67 (c), is made by "selection", "subject to the officer being found fit in all respects" and having to his/her credit the prescribed period, i. e. , 21 years of reckonable commissioned service. It is not repudiated that over-all ACR average of the petitioner was 7. 83. It appears that there was a tie between the petitioner and one Dr. Lt. Col. D. S. Saini who too had the same overall ACR average 7. 83. The tangle of tie between the two officers was resolved by the Selection Board by "selecting the senior of the two", i. e. , Lt. Col. D. S. Saini, who was graded b, i. e. , fit for promotion in his turn and placed at merit No. 7 while the petitioner was graded r, i. e. , unfit for promotion in the next higher rank at present and placed at merit No. 8 as per the provisions of the Government Policy on promotion dated February 26, 1996. The Boards decision was submitted to the Ministry of Defence for approval of the government. The scrutiny of the documents carried out by the Ministry of Defence, however, unfolded that there was an arithmetical error by the Initiating Officer (I. O.) in A. C. R. 1996-97 in respect of Lt. Col. D. S, Saini (Merit No. 7) which was used in the Selection Boards proceedings without correction. The correct A. C. R. average of Lt. Col. D. S. Saini was 7. 82. The ministry of Defence on the basis of the change in the A. C. R. average of Lt. Col. D. S. Saini from 7. 83 to 7. 82 found that his grading would change from b to r and that of the petitioner with a. C. R. average 7. 83 who had been graded r by the Selection Board, "would now be eligible for grading b (fit for promotion)". Col. D. S. Saini from 7. 83 to 7. 82 found that his grading would change from b to r and that of the petitioner with a. C. R. average 7. 83 who had been graded r by the Selection Board, "would now be eligible for grading b (fit for promotion)". The Boards proceedings were accordingly returned vide note 9 dated September 29, 2000 in file PC/18883/sb (M) No. 3/col/ ADC/2000/dgafms/dg-1 (ix), dated 29. 9. 2000 with the request that A. C. R. average may be rechecked in the light of the above analysis and the revised recommendations/boards proceedings be sent for consideration of mod. The Selection Board reassembled on November 9, 2000 and notwithstanding his higher position in the order of merit, the petitioner was again graded r, i. e. , unfit for promotion in the next higher rank at present ostensibly in view of his disciplinary background, i. e. , on the basis that he was visited with punishment of forfeiture of 20 months prospective services for promotion and severe reprimand while he was holding the rank of Captain. The documents were sent to the Ministry of Defence for approval. The Ministry of Defence approved the proceeding of the Selection Board, held on August 30, 2000 and November 9, 2000 and returned the record containing relevant Dossiers vide letter dated 13. 12. 2000 notwithstanding the fact that earlier the petitioner was found fit for promotion by Mod and the matter was remitted to the Selection board only for the qualified purpose of rechecking of the A. C. R. average. ( 4 ) IN the above perspective, the question that forces itself for consideration is as to whether the selection Board was vindicated in summing up the petitioner as unfit for promotion to the next higher rank at present solely on the basis of punishment awarded to him in the year 1984. The procedure for selection and promotion of Army Medical Corps, Army Dental Corps and M. N. S. Officers as delineated in Government Order No. 9 (2)/92-D (MED) dated February 26, 1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit, envisages preparation of an approach paper which is to embody details about various matters including statutory complaints and any disciplinary cases/punishment. Paragraph 8 of the said Government order provides that all A. C. Rs. Paragraph 8 of the said Government order provides that all A. C. Rs. In the present rank will be taken into account for purposes of promotion from Lt. Col. to Colonel and equivalent rank. Colonel to Brigadier and equivalent rank and Brigadier to Major General and equivalent rank. The said paragraph further postulates that a minimum of four A. C. Rs. should be available for consideration for promotion to the rank of Colonel. Paragraph 9 of the Government Order aforestated lays down method of calculation and visualises that averages of A. C. R. (10+ro+sro+ NSRO+dgms+dgafms) and TR (FTO+sto+hto) will be worked out separately for each report for each officer being considered. In case of there being more than one report for a particular assessment year, then the average of the individual reports will be taken to calculate the final average of that particular assessment year and thereafter, the final average of all the A. C. Rs. will be computed. In case of promotion from the rank of Lt. Col. to Colonel, the calculation will be the same as for administrative cadre except that the technical report (T. R.) includes the professional capability report (P. C. R. also ). The promotion policy delineated in the Government Order visualises that if an officer is rejected thrice, he will be graded u which signifies that he is unfit for further promotion. ( 5 ) THE Government Order aforestated does not provide that an officer may be graded as r merely on the basis of any punishment awarded in the past. The respondents have, however, placed credence on Army Headquarter A. Gs Branch letter No. 75718/ag/ps2 (a) dated 14th october, 1970 by which the position as to what is the effect of punishment of "reprimand"/"severe reprimand" on the promotion of officers, JCOs, WO and OR has been explained as under : "a question has been raised as to what effect the punishment of "reprimand" or "severe reprimand" has on the promotion of an officer, JCO, WO or OR, and whether any time limit has been imposed within which an Individual awarded such a punishment cannot be considered for acting promotion. The position is clarified in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. The position is clarified in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. The award of "reprimand" or "severe reprimand" does not debar an officer from being considered for promotion and may not by itself affect his acting or substantive promotion, but is taken cognizance of as part of the officers over-all record of service in assessing him for such promotion. The nature and gravity of the offence would, however, be kept in view by the selecting authorities. " 3. In the case of JCOs/wos/ NCOs, "severe reprimand" is however, a red ink entry vide para 387 (b) of regulations for the Army (1962 ). Various Arms/ Services have issued their Record offices Instructions imposing restrictions on the promotions of personnel having red ink entries in their conduct sheets. Such individuals are not promoted to higher rank until the expiry of specified periods of restriction ranging from 3 months to 1 year from the date of the red ink entry. "reprimand" is a black ink entry for JCOs/wos/ncos. Therefore, it has no adverse effect on their promotion. " It would be luculently evident from Clause 2 of the Army HQ AGs Branch letter dated October 14, 1970 relied upon by the respondents that punishment of "reprimand" or "severe reprimand" does not debar an officer from being considered for promotion nor does it affect his acting or substantive promotion but is taken cognizance as part of officers over-all record of service in assessing him for such promotion. In other words. punishment of "reprimand" or severe reprimand by itself does not disqualify an officer for being considered for promotion nor does it disqualify such officer from acting or substantive promotion though it is taken into reckoning as part of service record in assessing the officer for promotion. A Col. or even a superior officer is not reverted to the lower ranks merely on the basis of punishment of severe reprimand. The crucial question, therefore, that crops up for consideration is as to how should such disciplinary background be taken into consideration in assessing the officer for promotion. One way of considering the punishment of reprimand or severe reprimand as part of the service record of an officer, in assessing him for promotion is that if on comparative assessment of the final average of the relevant ACRs. One way of considering the punishment of reprimand or severe reprimand as part of the service record of an officer, in assessing him for promotion is that if on comparative assessment of the final average of the relevant ACRs. It is found that two or more officers are equally meritorious, as happened in the instant case when on an erroneous calculation the over all ACR average of Dr. D. S. Saini and that of the petitioner were found equal, i. e. , 7. 83 by the Selection Board in its deliberation held on 30. 8. 2000, then the officer with no disciplinary background may be preferred to one with disciplinary background having been awarded punishment of reprimand or severe reprimand, etc. In the case of JCOs/wos/ncos. severe reprimand is recorded as red ink entry and such Individuals are not promoted to higher rank "until the expiry of specified periods of restriction ranging from 3 months to one year from the date of the "red ink" entry but no such period has been specified in the case of officers with the background of severe reprimand punishment. We are of the considered view that the principle embodied in the maxim : "in Jura non remota causa sed proxima, spectator" (which signifies that in law, the immediate, not remote, cause of any event is regarded), should, in the absence of any statutory inhibition, be applied and punishment of "severe reprimand" awarded in remote past should be moderated, if not Ignored, keeping in view the subsequent conduct and performance of the Individual. In the words of Lord Bacon, "it were infinite for the law to consider the causes of causes, and their impulsions on one another : therefore, it contenteth itself with the immediate cause, and judgeth facts by that, without looking to any further degree". The award of "reprimand" or "severe reprimand" in the remote past cannot be taken cognizance of in assessing the individual officers for promotion in isolation of the subsequent conduct and behaviour ofthe officer. It is difficult to find a man who may have committed no sin in life. Once a sinner is not always a sinner. The history is replete with examples of notorious sinners having transformed themselves into greatest saints of their times. Some of them have even transcended the time barrier to command respectability throughout the ages. It is difficult to find a man who may have committed no sin in life. Once a sinner is not always a sinner. The history is replete with examples of notorious sinners having transformed themselves into greatest saints of their times. Some of them have even transcended the time barrier to command respectability throughout the ages. We feel called to say that opening the wounds which lie encrusted, after a lapse of 14 years, would only sub-serve to kill initiative of the officer and his devotion to duty. We are, therefore, of the considered view that if an officer with disciplinary background has transformed himself into a good officer, such transformation cannot be lost sight of merely because the officer had to his discredit a disciplinary background. The way in which the disciplinary background of the officer in the present case, has been taken cognizance of by the Selection Board, is tantamount to debarring him from being considered for promotion which runs counter to the stipulation embodied in the Army HQ AGs Branch letter dated October 14, 1970 reliance on which has been placed by the respondent. The punishment of severe reprimand was inflicted way back in 1984 and thereafter as already pointed out, the petitioner earned promotion to the rank of Major and thereafter, to the rank of Lt. Colonel. Paragraph 66 of the defence Services Regulations provides for substantive promotion by time-scale to the rank of Lt. Col, Clause (e) of Paragraph 66 deals with Army Dental Corps and provides that time scale substantive promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. will be granted after completion of 16 years of reckonable commissioned service "provided that the officer is recommended for such promotion". Recommendations could be withheld of officers awarded with punishment of severe reprimand. The argument that the aforesaid promotion was purely time scale one in nature and hence, granted to the petitioner on completion of prescribed period of commissioned service, does not commend itself for acceptance in view of the provisions contained in Para 66 (e) of the defence Services Regulations which not only prescribes completion of 16 years of reckonable commissioned service for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. , but it also envisages that the officer must also be "recommended for such promotion". Disciplinary background of the petitioner did not operate as an obstacle in being recommended for promotion to the post of Lt. Col. , but it also envisages that the officer must also be "recommended for such promotion". Disciplinary background of the petitioner did not operate as an obstacle in being recommended for promotion to the post of Lt. Col. and hence, the same cannot be interpreted to signify as a basis for denying him the promotion particularly when he stands higher in order of merit than Lt. Col. D. S. Saini, The Ministry of Defence had earlier altered the grading of the petitioner from r to b and relegated the matter to the selection Board for "rechecking" of the ACR average in the light of the observations made in the note No. 9 dated September 29, 2000 which clearly visualised that, "because of the change in the ACR average of Lt. Col. D. S. Saini from 7. 82 his grading was changed from b to r and lt. Col. R. Sainis ACR average of 7. 83 who has been graded r by Selection Board would now be eligible for grading b (fit for promotion)". The Boards proceedings were returned with the above note that ACR average may be "rechecked" in the light of the above analysis and revised recommendation of the Board proceedings be sent for consideration of Mod. The Selection board in its meeting held on November 9, 2000 seems to have exceeded its brief merely on the basis of a precedent which has concededly not attained finality in view of the pendency of statutory representation by the concerned individual, The zone of consideration and deliberation by the Selection Board was limited to "rechecking" in the light of the observations made by the mod vide order dated September 29, 2000. The Board, in our opinion, was not justified in grading the petitioner r notwithstanding specific direction given by Mod to award grading b to him. The Selection Board appears to have reckoned into consideration the punishment of "severe reprimand" given to the petitioner in 1984 by ignoring the subsequent developments and the failure to do so. In our opinion, has occasioned miscarriage of justice. Denial of promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Colonel in the fact situation of the present case does not appear to be just and proper. In our opinion, has occasioned miscarriage of justice. Denial of promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Colonel in the fact situation of the present case does not appear to be just and proper. Government of India, it seems has accorded approval to the minutes of the deliberations of the Selection Board held on November 9, 2000 sons proper self-direction to the relevant factors. In our opinion, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Mod, Government of india in the light of the above directions and observations. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20. 12. 2000 bearing No. 01098/sb (M)/no. 3/2000/ DGAFMS/dental-1 and the approval of the Government of India to the proceedings of Selection Board in so far as it relates to the petitioner are quashed. The matter is relegated to Mod for consideration afresh in the light of the directions/observation embodied in this judgment within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order/judgment. .