JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his case for promotion to the post of 2nd in Command with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted and also his claim for promotion to the next higher post of Commandant, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. The brief factual matrix, giving rise to the filing of the present writ petitions, may be noticed as follows :- i. The petitioner had initially joined under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Assistant Commandant in the year 1994 and thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant with effect from 28/04/2001. The promotion of the petitioner to the next higher post of 2nd in command was due in the year 2007. But at that time a disciplinary proceeding and a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. As such, the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC on 15/06/2007 under sealed cover but he was found to be unfit for promotion. Accordingly, persons junior to the petitioner were recommended for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command. Even in the next three consecutive DPCs, the petitioners case was considered in sealed cover but he was found un-fit for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command. ii. ON 01/04/2012 the DPC had met for considering the candidature of departmental candidates for promotion to the next higher post of Commandant and accordingly persons junior to the petitioner were again promoted to the post of Commandant with effect from 01/04/2012 while the petitioner was still languishing in the post of Deputy Commandant. iii. In the mean while when the petitioner was serving as Deputy Commandant under the CRPF, he was entrusted with the task of conducting a recruitment process for the posts of Constable (General Duty) to be held at the Group Centre, CRPF, Durgapur, West Bengal. In the said recruitment process, a written examination was held on 26/12/2002 but later on, it transpired that the question papers were leaked. In the said recruitment process, a written examination was held on 26/12/2002 but later on, it transpired that the question papers were leaked. When the said fact was brought to the notice of the higher authorities, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), Group Centre, Durgapur, conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter, filed a written complaint, on the basis of which, Bidhannagar PS Case No. 14 dated 21/01/2013 was registered under Section 409/120B/420 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against 11 accused persons including the petitioner. The matter was then put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Special Case No. 11/2004. iv. Around that time, vide order dated 06/02/2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings against him but on 13/02/2004, the order of suspension was revoked by the President, as a result of which the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondent so as to enquire into the two charges brought against the petitioner. On completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer Shri T.B. Rao, Commandant, CRPF, submitted his Enquiry Report holding that neither of the charges could be proved against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, on 16/06/2004, the petitioner was informed that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as regards the Article-II of the charges. v. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid view taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the Enquiry Report, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting that the matter be referred to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for its opinion. After a thorough examination of the Enquiry Report, the UPSC gave its opinion on 21/09/2005 holding that the Article-II was not proved against the petitioner. The UPSC had also observed that the Disciplinary Authority was bias against the petitioner and accordingly, recommended that the petitioner be exonerated by dropping the charges brought against him. vi. On 20/12/2007, the Director General, CRPF conveyed the order of the President exonerating the petitioner from the disciplinary proceeding by following the advice of the UPSC. By the judgment and order dated 30/04/2010 passed in connection with Special Case No. 11/2004, the petitioner was also acquitted by the Special Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in the criminal case. vi. On 20/12/2007, the Director General, CRPF conveyed the order of the President exonerating the petitioner from the disciplinary proceeding by following the advice of the UPSC. By the judgment and order dated 30/04/2010 passed in connection with Special Case No. 11/2004, the petitioner was also acquitted by the Special Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in the criminal case. However, before the letter dated 20/12/2007 was issued to the petitioner, the DPC had met on 15/06/2007 and recommended the names of his juniors for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command while keeping the petitioners case in sealed cover. vii. In similar sealed cover proceedings, the petitioner’s case was considered for promotion to the post of 2nd in Command against the vacancies arising for the year 2008-09, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 but he was found to be unfit although the petitioner was never communicated regarding any adverse entry in his ACR. It was only on 01/10/2010 that the Director General, CRPF had informed the Inspector General, CRPF that although the petitioner was considered by the DPC on 15/06/2007, 25/02/2008, 06/04/2009 and 31/03/2010, yet, he was found unfit by all the DPCs as he could not achieve the requisite bench mark. viii. Upon receipt of the communication dated 01/10/2010, the petitioner for the first time became aware of the adverse entries in the ACR. He had therefore, filed a representation dated 29/01/2011 seeking review of the ACR grading given to him for the year 2005-06 to 2007-2008. However, by the order dated 04/03/2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Eastern Sector, CRPF, Kolkata, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected without properly considering his case on merit. ix. Aggrieved by the aforesaid arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to him, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2762/2011, inter-alia, seeking interference with the minutes of the DPC held on 15/06/2007, 25/02/2008, 06/04/2009 and 31/03/2010 in so far as the same hold that the petitioner was unfit for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command and also for suitable modification/revision of his ACR besides seeking other consequential reliefs. x. In the meantime, on 23/02/2010, the respondents had communicated the full ACR of the petitioner pertaining to the years 2008-09 containing his ACR grading in two different parts, viz. 01/04/2008 to 31/07/2008 and 25/10/2008 to 31/03/2009. x. In the meantime, on 23/02/2010, the respondents had communicated the full ACR of the petitioner pertaining to the years 2008-09 containing his ACR grading in two different parts, viz. 01/04/2008 to 31/07/2008 and 25/10/2008 to 31/03/2009. In the first part pertaining to 01/04/2008 to 31/07/2008, the petitioner had been graded as “Good”, but in the 2nd phase i.e. for the period from 25/10/2008 to 31/03/2009 his ACR grading was “Very Good”. The overall performance of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 had been assessed as “Good” by the superior Reviewing Officer. xi. Aggrieved by the inferior grading of “Good” given to the petitioner for the year 2008-09, he had filed another representation dated 31/03/2010, which was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police (OPS), CRPF by the order dated 29/10/2010. Even the appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner was rejected by the Director General, CRPF by order dated 06/04/2011. Aggrieved by the order dated 06/04/2011, the petitioner had filed the second writ petition in the form of WP(C) 6052/2011 before this Court. 3. Having regard to the nature of issues raised in both the writ petitions, this court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner raises common question of law and therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. It is not in dispute that the bench mark for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command and Commandant in CRPF is 3 (three) “Very Good” and 2 (Two) “Good” in the consecutive 5 years of ACR preceding the year in which the DPC is held. By referring to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, Mr. Mazumdar submits that as on 15/06/2007 i.e. the date on which the DPC was held for considering the case of the petitioner to the rank of 2nd in Command, the petitioner was having ACR grading of “Very Good” for 3 (three) consecutive years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 whereas his ACR grading for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 were “Good”. Drawing the attention of this Court to the ACR grading for the year 2005-06, Mr. Drawing the attention of this Court to the ACR grading for the year 2005-06, Mr. Mazumdar submits that although the Reporting Officer had marked “Very Good” in the General Assessment of the petitioner for the aforesaid period, yet, the Reviewing Officer had downgraded the “Very Good” given to the petitioner to “Good” without assigning any reason. Mr. Mazumdar submits that downgrading of ACR grading by the Reviewing Officer without assigning any reason has been held to be bad in law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as such, the downgraded ACRs of the petitioner could not have been taken into account by the respondents while considering his case for promotion. The learned counsel has, however, forcefully argued that even if the ACR grading of the petitioner for the year 2005-06 is left undisturbed, even in that case the petitioner would meet the “Bench Mark” on the basis of his ACR grading of 3 (three) “Very Good” in 3 (three) consecutive years i.e. 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 for being recommended by the DPC held on 15/06/2007 for promotion. As such, submits Mr. Mazumdar, the respondents have acted in extremely unfair and discriminatory manner in promoting the persons junior to the petitioner to the rank of 2nd in Command on the basis of DPC held on 15/06/2007 by ignoring the case of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had convened a DPC on 01/04/2012 for recommending promotion to the post of Commandant and in the said DPC , person junior to the petitioner, viz, Sri Anupam Srivastava had been promoted as Commandant. According to Mr. Mazumdar, his client has got the requisite ACR grading of “Very good” in the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011. That apart, in the year 2008-09, the Reporting Officer had given him ACR grading of “Very Good” which was also maintained by the Reviewing Officer. However, the superior Reviewing Officer had downgraded the grading to “Good” without recording any reason. The downgrading of ACR was also communicated to the petitioner after much delay. Since the downgrading of ACR without recording any reason is not permissible in law, such downgraded ACR entry could not have been relied upon by the respondents so as to deny promotion to the petitioner. Mr. The downgrading of ACR was also communicated to the petitioner after much delay. Since the downgrading of ACR without recording any reason is not permissible in law, such downgraded ACR entry could not have been relied upon by the respondents so as to deny promotion to the petitioner. Mr. Mazumdar, therefore, submits that this is a clear case where the petitioner had ACR grading of “Very Good” for the 3 (three) consecutive years commencing from 2008 to 2011 and the ACR grading of “Good” for the 2 (two) previous years, thereby meeting the bench mark of 3 (three) “Very Good” and 2 (two) “Good” in the preceding 5 (five) years of ACR. As such, submits Mr. Mazumdar, the respondents have acted in absolutely arbitrary and illegal manner in denying promotion to the petitioner to the rank of 2nd in Command with effect from 15/06/2007 and thereafter to the rank of Commandant with effect from 01/04/2012 when his juniors were promoted. The petitioner, therefore, prays for appropriate order from this Court protecting his interest in the matter. In support of his aforementioned arguments, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the following decisions :- i. (2014) 6 GLR 342 (I.A. Khan Vs. Union of India & Others), ii. (2008) 8 SCC 725 (Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors), iii. (2013) 9 SCC 573 (Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India). 6. Mr. Keyal, learned ASGI has produced the records of the DPC held on 15/06/2007 to contend that the case of the petitioner was duly considered under sealed cover but he was found to be unfit for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command in the CRPF. Mr. Keyal has further submitted that the case of the petitioner could not be considered favourably since a disciplinary proceeding and criminal case was pending against him at the relevant point of time. However, after he was exonerated from the criminal proceeding, the petitioner has been promoted to the rank of 2nd in Command with effect from 21/06/2013 and his case would also be duly considered for promotion to the next higher rank in accordance with the Rules. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. As noted above, it is not in dispute that the “bench mark” for promotion to the post of 2nd in Command as well as Commandant is 3 (three) ‘Very Good’ and 2 (two) ‘Good’ in 5 (five) years of ACR preceding the holding of the DPCs. A perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly, the pleadings contained in paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in WP(C) 2762/2011, unequivocally goes to show that the petitioner had ACR grading of “Very Good” for 3 (three) successive years, viz. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. There was no ACR available for the year 2003-04 since the petitioner was under suspension w.e.f. 06/02/2003 to 13/03/2004. In the year 2004-05, the ACR grading of the petitioner was “Good” whereas for the year 2005-06, the grading was again “Good”. Therefore, on 15/06/2007, petitioner did meet the “bench mark” of ACR grading and was also eligible for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command. 9. As has been mentioned above, the Reporting Officer had given the grading of “Very Good” to the petitioner for 2005-2006, which was downgraded by the Reviewing Officer to “Good” without assigning any reason whatsoever. Similarly, even for the subsequent years of 2006-07, the ACR grading of “Very Good” given to the petitioner was downgraded to “Good” by the Reviewing Authority without assigning any reason. For the year 2008-09, the petitioner was not only given the ACR grading of “Very Good” by the Reporting Officer but the same was also confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Surprisingly, the superior Reviewing Authority had downgraded the same to “Good” once again without assigning any reason whatsoever for doing so. 10. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering an issue of similar nature, had categorically held that downgrading of ACR grading without recording any reason for the change is unsustainable in law. In the present case, a meticulous scrutiny of the records produced before this Court goes to show that the superior authorities have not recorded any reason whatsoever for downgrading the ACR grading of the petitioner during all the aforementioned period. In the present case, a meticulous scrutiny of the records produced before this Court goes to show that the superior authorities have not recorded any reason whatsoever for downgrading the ACR grading of the petitioner during all the aforementioned period. Although the petitioner had filed representations against such adverse entries in the ACR grading, such the representations have not only been rejected without proper application of mind to the issue raised by the petitioner but even the appeal preferred before the appellate authorities have been turned down for the reasons which are wholly untenable in the eye of law. 11. Record further reveals that the petitioner has been given adverse entries in his ACRs since the year 2004-05 and his ACR grading have also been downgraded for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 without any reason. However, no communication whatsoever was issued to the petitioner informing him about the downgrading of his ACR and/or the adverse entries made therein. It was only on 01-10-2010 that the petitioner was informed about such adverse entries in the ACR for the first time, that too after the lapse of several years. 12. In the case of Dev Dutt (Supra), the Supreme Court, has made the following observations. “13. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee’s chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a ‘good’ or ‘average’ or ‘fair’ entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a ‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’ entry.” 13. Again in para 18 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- “18. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder.” 14. By following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) and Dev Dutt (Supra) as well as a number of other decisions, this Court had the occasion to answer a question of similar nature in the case of I.A. Khan (Supra), wherein it has been held that it is imperative that every entry in ACR whether “Poor”, “Fair”, “Average”, “Good”, “Very Good”, “Outstanding” must be communicated to the Government servant within a reasonable period. It has been held that non-communication of an entry is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I.A. Khan (Supra) was also another case of a CRPF official who was denied the benefit of promotion on the basis of un-communicated adverse entry in the ACR. While deprecating such practice adopted by the respondents, this Court had categorically observed as follows :- “28. The nomenclature of an entry or grading in the ACR is not relevant. What is important is the effect of such an entry and that is the test which will determine whether the entry is adverse or not. Thus, it is the rigors and effect of the entry, which is of paramount importance, and not the phraseology. In the instant case, the benchmark for promotion was minimum three "very good" entries and two "good" entries. The "good" is not good enough to enable the petitioner to earn promotion and, in that context, there can be no two opinions that the "good" entry, in the context of the case, is, in fact, an adverse entry”. 15. What crystallizes from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements is that the authorities are duty bound to communicate all entries including adverse entries to a Government servant within a reasonable period of time. 15. What crystallizes from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements is that the authorities are duty bound to communicate all entries including adverse entries to a Government servant within a reasonable period of time. The promotional prospect of a government servant cannot be adversely affected by relying upon un-communicated adverse entry in the ACR more so, when there are “bench marks” fixed for the purpose of assessing the candidature. 16. In the present case the respondents have found the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of un-communicated adverse entries in his ACR. Four consecutive DPCs held on 15/06/2007, 25/02/2008, 06/04/2009 and 31/03/2010 have found the petitioner unfit for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command on the basis of entries in the ACR, which were not communicated to him before placing reliance on the same. 17. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves mention here-in. From a perusal of the record produces by Mr. Keyal, it can be seen that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command was rejected by the sealed cover proceeding of DPC held on 15/06/2007 by holding him as “unfit”. The records produced by Mr. Keyal goes to show that similar view had been taken by the DPCs held on 3 (three) subsequent occasions i.e. 25/02/2008, 06/04/2009 and 31/03/2010, 25/02/2008, 06/04/2009 and 31/03/2010. Save and except mentioning that the petitioner was “unfit” for promotion, there is no other remark of the DPC available on record indicating consideration made in his case or the reason as to why the petitioner was found to be unfit. 18. As noted above, there was a disciplinary proceeding as well as a criminal case pending against the writ petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 28/12/2007 and the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case only on 30/04/2010. Therefore, the DPC had taken up the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command in seal cover proceeding for valid reasons. But from the record I find that there was no consideration of his case by the DPC at all. Instead, the DPC appears to have simply brushed aside the case of the petitioner by branding him “unfit” on the ground of pendency of the Disciplinary Proceeding as well as the Criminal Case. 19. But from the record I find that there was no consideration of his case by the DPC at all. Instead, the DPC appears to have simply brushed aside the case of the petitioner by branding him “unfit” on the ground of pendency of the Disciplinary Proceeding as well as the Criminal Case. 19. The very purpose of holding a sealed cover proceeding by the DPC was to protect the interest of the petitioner by considering his case for promotion at par with other departmental eligible candidates so that in the event of his exoneration from the disciplinary proceedings, and if found fit for promotion, the petitioner could be given the benefit of such promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. But in the present case no such consideration appears to have been made by the DPC. Therefore, in reality, the respondents did not at all consider the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid seal cover proceedings, thereby acting in flagrant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 20. Coming to the question of downgrading of ACRs, it would be relevant to mention here that the Director General, CRPF had earlier issued a Standing Order No. 56/2001 dated 18/10/2001 laying down the guidelines to be followed by the authorities in the matter of preparation and maintenance of ACRs of Officers. Para 6.16 lays down the procedure to be followed while reviewing/upgrading or downgrading the ACR, which is quoted herein below :- “6.16. The Reviewing/Superior Reviewing Officer with whom the ACR files are available, should go through the assessment made by the reporting officer, and also, based on his personal knowledge can suo moto upgrade or downgrade the ACR. If necessary, he should enquire about the reasons for such sudden variation from the reporting/reviewing officers. However, the Reviewing/Superior Reviewing Officer should invariably record his reasons for such upgradation/down-gradation of the ACR. In some cases, it has been noticed that the reviewing officer or SRO, while disagreeing with the assessment made by the initiating officer, does not give reasons for his disagreement with the comments of the reporting officer which is a must. Some of the reviewing officers and SROs merely state that the officer reported upon has been under rated or over rated without giving any specific comments, which is bad in law. Some of the reviewing officers and SROs merely state that the officer reported upon has been under rated or over rated without giving any specific comments, which is bad in law. Various courts of law in their rulings and directions have categorically specified that in case reasons are not given, such gradings should not be taken into consideration. It is, therefore, binding on all the reviewing officers/SROs that they should record specific reasons for their disagreement with a particular aspect of the report given by the reporting officer.” 21. From a reading of the guidelines it will be evident on the face of the record that the respondents have not only acted in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by the Standing Order dated 18/10/2001 but have also acted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. That apart, even the representation dated 29/01/2011 filed by the petitioner objecting to the ACR grading for the year 2005-06 and 2007-08 has been rejected in a most perfunctory manner and with a pre-determined mind set without recording any valid reason. Under the circumstances, the observations made by the UPSC that the petitioner has been extended a biased treatment by the department appear to be well founded and therefore, merits acceptance by this Court. 22. From the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, this court is of the view that the respondents have not acted in good faith but have designedly manipulated the ACR of the petitioner only to deny him the benefit of promotion to the rank of 2nd in Command along with his junior, which in turn has had a cascading effect on his future promotional prospect. As on 15/06/2007, the petitioner was clearly entitled to be promoted to the rank of 2nd in Command but such promotion was denied to him in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. 23. Further, as has been held above, the respondents could not have denied promotion to the petitioner by relying upon un-communicated ACR grading, more particularly the down grading given without furnishing any reason. Therefore, it is apparent that had the petitioner been promoted to the rank of 2nd in Command with effect from 15/06/2007 then in that event he would had a fair chance of being further promoted to the rank of Commandant in CRPF along with his juniors as per the DPC recommendation made on 01/04/2012. Therefore, it is apparent that had the petitioner been promoted to the rank of 2nd in Command with effect from 15/06/2007 then in that event he would had a fair chance of being further promoted to the rank of Commandant in CRPF along with his juniors as per the DPC recommendation made on 01/04/2012. 24. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, these writ petitions are hereby disposed of with the following directions :- (1) The promotion given to the petitioner to the post of 2nd in Command will now be given effect to from 15/06/2007 i.e. the date on which his juniors were promoted. (2) The respondents would constitute a review DPC for considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Commandant with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted to the said post. (3) The exercise as directed by this Court shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from today. With the above observations, both the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no order as to costs.