MAJOR SUBODH SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the communications dated 8 -8 -2001 and 8 -2 -2002 by which the statutory appeal/complaint filed by the petitioner against the Confidential Report for the period June, 2000 to November, 2000 has been rejected and has also assailed the validity of communication dated 17 -9 -2001 by which the petitioner was informed that he has not been empanelled for promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that while the petitioner in the year 2000 was posted at 36 Infantry Division Ordnance Unit, Sagar as a Major, a Special Confidential Report in respect of the petitioner relating to the period June, 2000 to November, 2000 was directed to be sent and accordingly the petitioner's Initiating Officer, respondent No. 5, recorded a report and gave an "outstanding" 9 point grading to the petitioner on 6 -1 -2001. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner's file was forwarded to the Reviewing Officer, respondent No. 4, the General Officer Commanding, 36 Infantry Division, who graded the petitioner as an "above average" officer, but made certain advisory remarks in the pen picture column which were communicated to the petitioner on 23 -1 -2001.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner's Initiating Officer had given him an "excellent" grading but the Reviewing Officer, on the basis of a complaint made by one Hav. Kulwinder Singh directly to the Reviewing Officer, got personally involved and with a biased mind gave him a lower grading and also an advisory/adverse remark which resulted in adversely effecting his promotional chances. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grading given by the Reviewing Officer is contrary to the procedure and guidelines prescribed for writing and recording of Annual Confidential Reports and being biased deserves to be set aside.