Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 98 (JK)

Rajan Bakshi (Col. ) v. Union Of India

2009-03-04

NIRMAL SINGH

body2009
1. Petitioner is seeking writ in the nature certiorari quashing order dt. 16th of Jan06, passed by respondent No.4, whereby the statutory complaint dt. 3rd of March04, filed by the petitioner has been accepted partially and further expunging the entire assessment recorded by the respondent No.3 in the ACR of the petitioner w.e.f. March98 to June98. Direction is also sought for quashing order dt. 22nd of Feb07, passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the statutory complaint of the petitioner dt. 8th of May06, has been dismissed and expunging the low grading awarded to the petitioner in the ACR pertaining to the period Sept01 to 30th of June02. 2. Writ is also sought in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/promotion to the rank of Brigadier w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that in the month of Oct95, he was posted as SPO in Central Ordinance Depot (COD) which posting was given to him solely on the basis of merit and outstanding performance.It is stated that during the above posting, the petitioner earned 5 CRs out of which three were outstanding for which nine points were given and two were assessed above average for which he was awarded 8 points. It is stated that the petitioner was getting 9 points consistently i.e. outstanding CRs from June96 to Nov96, Dec96 to May97 and June97 to Feb98. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the period w.e.f. March98 to June98 i.e. only for three months, his CRs which were initiated by the concerned Initiating Officer were graded low by respondent No.3,who was the Reviewing Officer and this was done with malafide intention. To substantiate the assertion regarding malafide on the part of said respondent, it is stated that the Reviewing Officer-respondent No.3 after taking over the duties of ADG OS(TS) asked the petitioner as to how the distribution of Rate Contract Batteries is to be made to various suppliers. It is stated that as per the prevailing practice, the order was to be placed before two firms i.e. M/s Geep India, New Delhi and M/s Novino which is a Japanese Collaboration firm, but the said respondent told the petitioner to place more orders to the M/s Geep India, which was declined by the petitioner. It is stated that as per the prevailing practice, the order was to be placed before two firms i.e. M/s Geep India, New Delhi and M/s Novino which is a Japanese Collaboration firm, but the said respondent told the petitioner to place more orders to the M/s Geep India, which was declined by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter brought the matter to the notice of Commandant, who directed the petitioner to follow the past norms unless there is some direction otherwise by the Army Headquarters. It is stated that the orders were placed before the two firms as per the practice as a result of which respondent No.3 was annoyed and it was only on this basis, the said respondent who was the Reviewing Officer, with a malafide intention degraded the CRs of the petitioner for the aforementioned three months which resulted in non consideration of the petitioners case for further promotion. 5. The petitioner further submitted that as he was not communicated about the low gradation of his CRs for the aforementioned period and this fact came to his notice only in March04, he without any delay, filed the statutory complaint in March04 itself, which was partially allowed and the authority concerned expunged the assessment made by the RO on twelve points but no relief regarding further promotion was given to the petitioner as the assessment made by the RO was not expunged in toto. 6. The further case as projected by the petitioner is that in April01, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Dir. (OS) (Col), HQ Southern Command, where respondent No.3, became his Initiating Officer. It is stated that in the month of April/May02, when the marriage of daughter of respondent No.3 was fixed, number of functions were arranged in the house of said respondent with the help of Resources available in Rajinder Singh Institute, Pune. It is stated that it was during this period again that the official relations of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 who was now his Initiating Officer became extravagant and this resulted in downgrading of the CRs of the petitioner for the period Sept01 to June02, by the Reviewing Officer namely Lt. Gen.MA Gurbaxani. It is stated that this was done due to the adverse feed back by the respondent No.3 (IO) to the Reviewing Officer of the petitioner. Gen.MA Gurbaxani. It is stated that this was done due to the adverse feed back by the respondent No.3 (IO) to the Reviewing Officer of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter filed another Statutory complaint on 8th of May06 before the competent authority, which was rejected vide order dt. 22nd of Feb07. It is stated that while deciding the second statutory complaint of the petitioner, the respondents did not consider the service record of the petitioner and his previous CRs. It is stated that the downgraded CRs of the petitioner were never communicated to him and it was only when No.2 Selection Board held in Jan06, did not empanel the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Brigadier, that he came to know about his adverse CRs for the period Sept01 to 30th of June02. It is the above action of respondents regarding downgrading of CRs of the petitioner for the period March98 to June98, Sept01 to June02, and the resultant rejection of the statutory complaints filed in this regard and non consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher rank, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 7. Counter has been filed by respondent-Union of India, stating therein that the assessment of the officers in the CRs is regulated by Special Army Order (SAO) of 1989 dt. 3rd of May89, which stands replaced by Army Order 45 of 2001, and other relevant policies issued from time to time. The entire assessment of an officer in any CR consists of the assessment made by three different reporting officers i.e. IO, RO and SRO and these assessments are made independent of each other. While considering an officer for promotion to the next rank above the rank of Colonel, the Selection Board takes into consideration number of facts and the selection/rejection of an officer for further promotion depends upon his overall service profile and the comparative merit within his batch-mates. It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner whose case was considered by the Selection Boards, was not found suitable for further promotion after taking into consideration his overall service profile. It is stated that on considering the petitioners earlier statutory complaint, the competent authority partially accepted the same and expunged those remarks of the RO which were inconsistent with the service profile of the petitioner. It is stated that on considering the petitioners earlier statutory complaint, the competent authority partially accepted the same and expunged those remarks of the RO which were inconsistent with the service profile of the petitioner. It is stated that the second complaint filed by the petitioner dt. 8th of May06 was also considered but the same having been found without any basis was rightly rejected vide order impugned dt. 22nd Feb07. It is thus stated that the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the malafide intention on the part of respondent No.3 which ultimately led to the downgrading of CRs of the petitioner and his resultant non consideration for promotion to the next higher rank. In order to justify the stand taken in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the circumstances which led to such a situation. It was stated that non fulfilment of the desire of the respondent No.3 regarding placing the order for supply of batteries to M/s Geep India Ltd, was one of the reason which led to downgrading of the CRs of the petitioner for the earlier period i.e. March98 to June98, by the aforementioned respondent who was the Reviewing Officer of the petitioner at the relevant time. It was further stated that it was again due to uncongenial atmosphere during the initiation of the CRs for the period Sept01 to June02, when the respondent NO.3 was the Initiating Officer that the CRs of the petitioner for the aforesaid period were downgraded by the Reviewing Officer on the feedback of respondent No.3. It was thus stated that in both the cases, respondent No.3 was instrumental in downgrading the CRs of the petitioner which resulted in spoiling his career. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the respondent authorities considered the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner against his down-gradation for the period March98 to June98, and expunged 12 downgraded qualities as assessed by the respondent No.3 as Reviewing Officer, then there was no reason not to expunge the remaining assessment made by the said officer. It was further stated that even while rejecting the second complaint filed for expunging the adverse remarks made during the period Sept01 to June02, no reasons have been given by the authority concerned. It was further stated that even while rejecting the second complaint filed for expunging the adverse remarks made during the period Sept01 to June02, no reasons have been given by the authority concerned. It is submitted that in terms of amendment made in para 33 of Special Army Order, 1989, referred to above, (here-in-after referred to as Order of 1989), all Confidential Reports which are endorsed by the IO and the RO are to be forwarded to the SRO and in terms of para 101, it is incumbent upon the Senior Reporting Officer to endorse specific remarks on the assessment made by the junior reporting officer by indicating reasons. 10. In terms of para 102 of the said Order, it is obligatory on the part of Senior Reporting Officer to see that the Confidential Report has been made keeping in view the provisions of the Order of 1989. It is stated that in the present case, the reports of the petitioner were not forwarded to the SRO in terms of para 33 of Order of 1989 and therefore, in absence of any endorsement to be made by the SRO as per the provisions of paras 101 and 102, the said Confidential Reports which have been downgraded cannot be made the basis of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank. It is further submitted that the downgraded CRs of the petitioner were never communicated to him and he was not warned verbally or in writing by his superior officer regarding any shortcoming. It is stated that the Reporting officers of the petitioner have otherwise not done the spot visit in order to assess the performance of the petitioner. It is stated when the Confidential report of the petitioner is not based on the material available on record, then this should not be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned and direction may be issued to re-assess the same. Reliance in this regard is being placed on a judgment passed by this Court in the Case of Capt. Rajiv Ranjan v. UOI and ors, SWP No. 1525/94 decided on Ist of Jan2000. 11. Reliance in this regard is being placed on a judgment passed by this Court in the Case of Capt. Rajiv Ranjan v. UOI and ors, SWP No. 1525/94 decided on Ist of Jan2000. 11. The further plea put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when no reasons are mentioned for downgrading the CR of an officer or nor the change is communicated to the said officer/employee, such entries should not be allowed to continue on record. Reliance in this regard is being placed on a judgment of the Apex Court reported as JT 1996 (1) SC 641, UP Jal Nigam and others v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and ors. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India, however, countered the above pleas of the counsel for the petitioner by projecting that in terms of para 33 referred to above, when there is a difference of 2 or more marks between the assessment made by the IO and RO, only then the report is to be forwarded to the SRO for his endorsement. It is stated that in case, the difference is less than 2 between the assessment made by the IO and RO, then, the SRO need not to make any endorsement or to record any reasons. In the case of the petitioner also, as the difference was less than 2, therefore, the CR of the petitioner was not forwarded to SRO for his endorsement. It is stated that the provisions of the Order of 1989 have thus been fully complied with. So far as plea of the petitioner that no spot visit was done, placing reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of CWP No.6925/01, Col RK 13. Thakar v. UOI, decided on 29th of Aug08, it is stated that no spot verification is necessary by any of the Reporting Officer. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported as (2001)10 SCC 424, Amrik Singh v. UOI and two other judgments of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of D.S. Pandey v. UOI, CWP No.6575/02, decided on 31st of May05 and Col Amarjeet v. UOI, CWP No.5632/08, decided on 5th of Aug08, it is stated that this court in writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate court over the decision of the Selection Board. 14. 14. Before adverting to the pleas raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice paras 33 (amended), 101 and 102 of Order of 1989, on which reliance has been placed by both the sides. The said provisions read as under:- "33. All CRs will be endorsed by the IO and the RO and forwarded to the SRO as specified in the channel of Reporting. The SRO will be required to endorse the CR under the following conditions:- (a) When there is difference of 2 or more marks between the assessment of IO and RO in the Box Grading. (b) When between IO and RO only one person has endorsed. (c) Outstanding, low and Below Average assessment by IO and/or RO." "101: It will be incumbent upon the senior reporting officers (i.e. RO/SRO/NSRO and HTO/Head of Arm or Service) to endorse specific remarks on the assessment by the junior reporting officer for the following in pen picture:- (a) Whether the assessment by junior reporting officer is "Liberal", "Justified" or "Strict". (b) Recommendations for expunction of assessment which is not considered to be objective. These recommendations will need to be supported by reasons. "102: In addition, it will also be obligatory for the senior reporting officers to ensure that the CR has been rendered in accordance with the provisions contained in the SAO and that the conditions for consistency in reporting have been complied with." 15. A perusal of para 33 of the Order of 1989, as amended, shows that all CRs are to be endorsed by the IO and RO and these are to be forwarded to the SRO as specified in the Channel of Reporting. The SRO is to endorse the CR if there is difference of two or more marks between the assessment made by the IO and RO in Box Grading or when out of two reporting officers i.e IO and RO,only one has endorsed the CR or when the CR has been endorsed as outstanding, low and below average by the IO and RO. But in each case, the CR has to be forwarded to the SRO. But in each case, the CR has to be forwarded to the SRO. Further, a perusal of paras 101 and 102, noticed above, shows that it is incumbent upon the Senior Reporting officer to endorse specific remarks on the assessment made by the Junior reporting officer as to whether the same is `liberal, justified or strict and it is further obligatory on the part of Senior Reporting Officer to ensure that the CR has been endorsed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Order of 1989. 16. So far as the CRs of the petitioner for the period March98 to June98, are concerned, the adverse entries made in the said CRs were not communicated to the petitioner. As noticed above, he came to know about degradation of his CRs in the month of March04 and thereafter he filed a statutory complaint before the authority concerned. The said authority after examining the record, considered and decided the statutory complaint of the petitioner by passing order dt. 16th of Jan06. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- "....The statutory complaint of the officer has been examined in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of the Army HQs. It is observed that all the CRs in the reckonable profile are fair, objective, well corroborated and performance based except the following assessment of RO in CR 03/98-06/98:- a/ Para 11) -Decisiveness. b/ Para 11(d) -Dependability. c/ Para 11(e) -Drive and determination. d/ Para 11(k) -Maturity. e/ Para 11(l) -Stamina f/ Para 11(m) -Tenacity g/ Para 12(a) -Knowledge of Own Arm/Service and its practical application on ground h/ Para 12(b) -Knowledge of other Arms and Services. i/ Para 12) -Effectiveness in training of his Command j/ Para 12(e) -Effectiveness in carrying out administration of his Command k/ Para 12(f) -Equipment management and ability to utilise resources economically. l/ Box grading at Para 19. 7. The Central Government, therefore, orders expunction of above mentioned assessment of RO on grounds of inconsistency. 8. Subject to the partial relief ordered as above to IC-36939F Col Rajan Bakshi, AOC, the Central Government, rejects his Statutory Complaint dated 03rd March 2004 submitted against CR 03/98-06/98." 17. l/ Box grading at Para 19. 7. The Central Government, therefore, orders expunction of above mentioned assessment of RO on grounds of inconsistency. 8. Subject to the partial relief ordered as above to IC-36939F Col Rajan Bakshi, AOC, the Central Government, rejects his Statutory Complaint dated 03rd March 2004 submitted against CR 03/98-06/98." 17. The petitioner in his statutory complaint had alleged malafide against the RO, which is apparent from the order itself referred to above, passed by the competent authority, stating that the RO was interested in favouring a particular supplier of ANPRC battery. It was stated that due to his forthright approach, the RO could not succeed in granting benefit to a particular firm. The petitioner had also narrated the incident regarding distribution of rate contract batteries to various suppliers which is also borne out from order dt. 16th of Jan06, passed by the competent authority. The said order of the competent authority which makes mention of the stand taken by the petitioner in his statutory complaint reads as under:- "..3. The officer alleges that the RO was interested in favouring a particular supplier of ANPRC battery. However, due to his forthright approach, the RO could not succeed. In the Statutory Complaint, he has given detail regarding the distribution of rate contract battery to various suppliers. 4. As per the officer, he resisted the move to work out the cost of battery on transportation model. As a result, the RO could not oblige the firm he wanted to. He alleges that the RO was also interfering in orders of other items as well. The RO became more demanding as this was the time when the impugned CR was initiated. The officer also states that the RO continued to ask favours after his departure from COD. The RO did not visit the COD during his tenure and did not listen to briefing as well which SPO gives to all VIPs. He has interacted with him only on telephone and never met him. The ROs knowledge about the performance of the officer was inadequate and he was never given any performance counselling" 18. The competent authority, as noticed above, after considering the statutory complaint of the petitioner expunged twelve adverse remarks made by the respondent No.3-RO concerned of the petitioner, in his CRs for the period March98 to June98. The ROs knowledge about the performance of the officer was inadequate and he was never given any performance counselling" 18. The competent authority, as noticed above, after considering the statutory complaint of the petitioner expunged twelve adverse remarks made by the respondent No.3-RO concerned of the petitioner, in his CRs for the period March98 to June98. The said adverse entries were expunged on the basis of inconsistency whereas the ground taken by the petitioner regarding the malafide on the part of RO was not considered at all, which malafide is writ large on the face of it. Even on filing of the said statutory complaint by the petitioner, comments were invited from DDG (Proc), namely IDS Boparai. The said officer submitted his parawise comments. In his comments to sub para (ii) to (v) of the complaint filed by the petitioner, it has been observed as under:- "(b) Sub Para (ii) to (v): On going through the correspondence att, I recall that the petitioner had come to me and told me that Maj Gen GS Kohli, VSM (Retd) desired that Ms Geep India, New Delhi be allotted heavy portion of the sanctioned ANPRC Btys. Allotment of hy portion of the btys to one firm had serious repercussions for the Army when there were only two sources in the country and the btys did not have any civil end use. I told the petitioner to follow the correct norms as in past, and distribute btys in proportion as per firms capacity so as to ensure both sources are kept alive and competitiveness ensured thereby. I also told the petitioner categorically that no deviation in the allotments would be made unless written directions contrary to our recommendations are received from the Army HQ. Subsequently, we received letters from DDG OS (L&E) to work out transportation model cost matrix for distributi9on of btys to the firms. This would have given clear advantage to Ms Geep-India located in Central India (Allahabad) over the o0ther firm Ms Novino located at Vadodra and would have proved extremely damaging for the Army subsequently, if the other source had dried and Army had to deal with only one firm. Accordingly, Army HQ was apprised of the consequences of allotting btys on transportation model Cost Matrix vide our letter No. 14021/Y3/FS/Prov/BC dt. 07 Aug 98 (Appx G) and asked for clear cut policy. Accordingly, Army HQ was apprised of the consequences of allotting btys on transportation model Cost Matrix vide our letter No. 14021/Y3/FS/Prov/BC dt. 07 Aug 98 (Appx G) and asked for clear cut policy. I had given clear instrs to the petitioner to follow the correct procedure and transparency in all transaction irrespective of the auth approaching him. I am sure that the Offr (Petitioner) had followed my instrs scrupulously and apprised me time to time if any higher official approached him." 19. In para 5 of the comments furnished by the aforesaid officer, it has been observed as under:- "5. Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner is an extremely hard working Offr who has carried out his duties with utmost dedication till last day of his stay in COD Agra. The fact that COD Agra could meet all the requirements of the Fd Army in OP RAKSHAK & PARAKRAM is testimony of the sound provisioning and procurement made during his tenure as SPO." 20. Ultimately, after making the above noticed comments, the officer concerned made following recommendation:- "Recommendation: I recommend that the complaint be examined on its merit and if the assessment of the RO is out of tune with the performance of the petitioner in that appointment/overall performance, the same may be expunged." 21. A perusal of the above comments and the ultimate recommendation made by the DDG(Proc), shows that the petitioner had rightly alleged the malafide against his RO-respondent No.3 in his statutory complaint but the authority concerned while disposing of the said complaint filed by the petitioner in this regard did not rightly consider the above aspect of the matter and partially accepted the statutory complaint by expunging only twelve adverse entries made by the RO only on the basis of inconsistency, which in my opinion, is not in accordance with the law. When the malafide on the part of the RO of the petitioner stood proved, which is apparent from the perusal of the comments furnished by the DDG(Proc) noticed above, then, all the adverse entries made in the CRs of the petitioner by the then RO i.e. respondent No.3 for the period March98 to June98, should have been expunged and should not have been taken into consideration by the authority concerned in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for further promotion, if any. All these adverse entries made in the CR of the petitioner for the period referred to above, by the RO concerned with malafide intention, thus, would be deemed to have been expunged. The order dt. 16th of Jan06, passed by respondent No.4 whereby the first statutory complaint of the petitioner has been partially accepted without adverting to the plea of the petitioner regarding malafide is also not sustainable. 22. The other adverse entries which are also being sought to be quashed pertain to the period Sept01 to June02. Again the malafide on the part of respondent No.3 who was IO of the petitioner for the said period is projected to be the cause of downgradation of the CR for the relevant period. 23. As noticed above, the stand of the petitioner in this regard is that respondent No.3 who was not having cordial relations with the petitioner was instrumental in downgrading the CRs of the petitioner by giving a wrong feed back to the RO of the petitioner, who himself was an honest officer. The other plea for not taking into consideration the said adverse entries is that as per relevant Order/instructions, the CRs of the petitioner for the aforementioned period were not forwarded to the SRO for his endorsement. It is further stated that even the above adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner. 24. The record pertaining to the assessment made by the IO and RO concerned during the above period has been produced by the respondent-Union of India. A perusal of the same shows that the respondent No.3 who was the IO of the petitioner during the said period of dispute has not downgraded the CRs of the petitioner but it is the RO who has downgraded his CRs for the relevant period. The petitioner, as noticed above, has taken a specific stand in the writ petition that officer concerned who remained the RO of the petitioner during the above period i.e. Sept01 to June02, was an honest officer and it is only the respondent No.3, the then IO who was instrumental in getting his CRs downgraded from the RO concerned, which plea of the petitioner without any evidence on record is difficult to be accepted. The officer concerned, in his individual capacity as a Reviewing Officer, has every right to make the assessment taking into consideration the service profile of an officer working under him, which assessment has to be believed as it is unless it is shown that it emanated from bias and vindictiveness, which is not the case herein. The petitioner as indicated above, has not alleged any malafide on the part of RO, therefore, in the absence of any such stand taken by the petitioner against the RO concerned, it cannot be said that RO was influenced by the IO (respondent No.3) to make adverse entries in the CRs of the petitioner for the above period. 25. One aspect of the matter which, however, requires consideration is regarding forwarding of the CRs of the officers after these are endorsed by IO and RO concerned to the SRO. 26. The specific stand taken by the respondent-Union of India is that when there is a difference of two or more points between the assessment of IO and RO, only then the CRs are to be forwarded to the SRO for his endorsement. I am of the opinion that the said stand of the respondents is not in line with the relevant provisions of Order of 1989. In terms of para 33 of the said Order as amended noticed above, even though there is a difference of less than two marks between the assessment made by the IO and RO in the box grading, it is obligatory on the part of authorities concerned to forward the CRs of the officers to the SRO, which in the present case has not been done. Even otherwise, when an assessment is made by the IO and the RO differs with the same, then, he has to record the reasons for doing so, so that when the CR is forwarded to the SRO, he may make his own assessment taking into consideration the reasoning given by the RO in downgrading the CRs. But in the present case, a perusal of the CRs of the petitioner for the period Sept01 to June02 shows that no reasoning has been given by the RO while downgrading the CRs of the petitioner. Even the CRs recorded for the above period are not in accordance with the Special Instructions as framed in the Order of 1989, for the Reporting Officers. 27. Even the CRs recorded for the above period are not in accordance with the Special Instructions as framed in the Order of 1989, for the Reporting Officers. 27. In the Order of 1989, there is a clause "Guidance for improvement" under the Special Instructions for the Reporting Officers. Paras 150 and 151 under the heading "Guidance for Improvement" are relevant and are being reproduced below:- "150. The information given in the Confidential Reports is not for the exclusive use of the MS Branch for Personal management functions but is also intended to promote the professional development of the officer reported upon. It is for the development aspect which many times is overlooked by the reporting officers. They should counsel and guide the officer as well as apprise him of his shortcoming when noticed throughout the reporting period. This obligation of duty should not be deferred to the time of initiation of the report so that adverse remarks, if any, do not come as a surprise to the officer reported upon." "151. Some reporting officers carry an erroneous impression that only the IO and the First TO are required to carry out performance counselling before endorsing any adverse remarks. It may be stated that the professional development of the subordinates is a function of all echelons of command and is not the exclusive responsibility of the IO and the First TO. Hence it is the duty of all the reporting officers in the chain of initiation of reports to counsel and guide the ratees. The counselling may be done in person or in writing." 28. In the case in hand, as indicated above, the above instructions have not been followed by the officer who was the RO of the petitioner during the above period. There is nothing on record to show that in order to promote the professional development or any shortcomings on the part of the petitioner which resulted in downgradation of his CRs, he was ever counselled or guided in person or in writing by the RO or any other superior authority. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be concluded that the CRs of the petitioner for the above period in dispute i.e. Sept01 to June02, have not been assessed by the RO keeping in view the standing Instructions on the subject issued vide Order of 1989, referred to above. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be concluded that the CRs of the petitioner for the above period in dispute i.e. Sept01 to June02, have not been assessed by the RO keeping in view the standing Instructions on the subject issued vide Order of 1989, referred to above. The said CRs of the petitioner, thus, having not been assessed in terms of the relevant provisions aforementioned cannot be taken on record. In arriving at such a conclusion, I am conscious of the fact that judicial review in such like administrative decisions is not permissible but there can be no denial of the fact also that wherever a finding to the extent is recorded that authority concerned in taking an administrative decision has failed to comply with the relevant provisions/Rules governing the field or that the process in reaching such a decision has not been observed correctly, then this court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in such like matters. In expressing such an opinion, I am guided by the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan, (2000) 6 SCC 698. The relevant observations made in this regard in para 29 of the judgment are being reproduced below:- "It is a well known principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such." 29. In the case in hand, the respondent Union of India has not correctly observed the process of initiation of CRs of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of para 33 of Order of 1989, noticed above under which provision, as indicated above, it is obligatory on the part of authorities concerned to forward all the CRs endorsed by the IO and RO to the SRO as specified in the Channel of Reporting. Even, the authority concerned in its capacity as RO, before making the assessment, has not taken into consideration the provisions of Order of 1989 as contained in paras 150 and 151 noticed above. In terms of para 150, quoted above, it is obligatory on the part of any Reporting officer to counsel and guide the officer concerned and apprise him of his shortcomings and this has to be done prior to the initiation of the reports. The petitioner during the aforementioned period in dispute was not ever guided by the RO and not even apprised of his shortcomings, if any. Even, the RO while downgrading the CRs of the petitioner has not given any reason. Therefore, the method adopted by the RO while making the assessment for the period in dispute and the resultant action of respondent Union of India in not forwarding the CRs of the petitioner for the said period to the SRO is held to be not in accordance with the relevant provisions of Order of 1989, noticed above, and has to be struck down. The judgments cited by the learned ASGI, appearing on behalf of respondent Union of India regarding non visit of the Reporting Officer and non interference by this court over the decision of Selection Board would, therefore, be of no avail to them when the initial action of respondent authorities in making the assessment by the RO and non forwarding of the same to the SRO is held to be in violation of the standing Instructions as laid down in Order of 1989. 30. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1/ That the downgradation of the CRs of the petitioner for the period March98 to June98, having been done with extraneous considerations by respondent No.3 in his capacity as RO, cannot be allowed to continue on record and is struck down. The resultant order dt. 30. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1/ That the downgradation of the CRs of the petitioner for the period March98 to June98, having been done with extraneous considerations by respondent No.3 in his capacity as RO, cannot be allowed to continue on record and is struck down. The resultant order dt. 16th of Jan06, passed by respondent No.4 while deciding the first statutory complaint of the petitioner, whereby the said complaint was accepted partially can also not be sustained and is accordingly quashed; 2/ That the assessment made by the RO in the CRs of the petitioner for the period Sept01 to June02, is held to be in violation of the provisions of Paras 150 and 151 of the Standing Instructions of Order of 1989, and thus cannot be taken into consideration by the authority concerned in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for further promotion; 3/ That the CRs of the petitioner for the period Sept01 to June02, can also not be allowed to be taken into consideration as the same have not been assessed in terms of provision of Para 33 of Order of 1989, and therefore, order dt. 22nd of Feb07, passed by respondent No.4 in rejecting the second statutory complaint is also held to be bad and is accordingly quashed; 4/ That in case any Selection Board was held for considering the cases of the officers for promotion to the rank of Brigadier during the period March98 to June02, and any of the junior of the petitioner was promoted, then, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for such promotion keeping in view his CRs for the period prior to March98; 5/ That so far as CRs of the petitioner for the period Sept01 to June02, are concerned, these would be forwarded to SRO for re-assessment in accordance with the relevant Rules governing the field and if on re-assessment by the SRO, in case, the petitioner falls within the consideration zone for promotion to the next higher rank, his case shall be considered accordingly; 6/ The authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to it by the petitioner. Till this is done, the interim order dt. Till this is done, the interim order dt. 29th of July08, so far as it relates to providing the official accommodation and transportation to the petitioner is concerned, shall continue to operate. Disposed of accordingly.