Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1487 (JHR)

Vijay Bihari Sharan v. Union of India

2009-11-23

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was holding the post of Commandant, 10 Battalion, C.R.P.F., has filed this writ application challenging the order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 4th October 2002 rejecting his representation filed for expunction of adverse entry in his service record. By Annexure-1, the petitioner was informed that in his ACR for the period from 1/4/2000 to 31/3/2001, the following adverse remarks have been endorsed: “ You absented from performing Ops duties on medical and every other pretext. Has become a liability to the Force. Work and conduct below average.” The petitioner challenged the entry of the said adverse remarks in his service record by filing representation contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, addressed to Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi; a copy of the representation has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this writ application. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order contained in Annexure-5, submitted that though the petitioner gave reply in details about each and every allegations made against him, but the authority concerned without considering his reply to the allegations, has passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 rejecting the representation of the petitioner without assigning any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the same suffers from non-application of mind. Though by filing a counter affidavit, the respondents have tried to support the impugned order by stating the reasons for rejection of the representation, but the same cannot be taken into consideration, as those grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit are totally absent either in Annexure-1 or in Annexure-5. The submission of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct. The impugned order contained in Annexure-5 does not contain any reason for rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner in his representation. From the impugned order Annexure5, it does not appear that the points raised by the petitioner in his representation has at all been taken into consideration. Therefore, in my view, the same suffers from non-application of mind and it needs reconsideration. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. From the impugned order Annexure5, it does not appear that the points raised by the petitioner in his representation has at all been taken into consideration. Therefore, in my view, the same suffers from non-application of mind and it needs reconsideration. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 4th October 2002 is hereby set aside and the respondent no.2, Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex no.1, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application stands disposed of.