LIEUTENANT COLONEL U P MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-3
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 24,1994

LIEUTENANT COLONEL U.P.MATHUR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sema J. - (1.)In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari praying for setting aside, among other, the following A.C.Rs.:
(a) The ACR of 1978-79 by, all Reporting officers as being subjective; (b) the technical ACRs of 1983-84 and 1984-84; (c) the complete ACRs of 1985-86 and 1986-87; (d) the ACR by Reviewing Officer for period March, 1986 to May, 1986;

(2.)Petitioner was commissioned on 3rd May, 1964 from Officers Training School, Poona into the Corps of Engineers as an Emergency Commissioned Officer. He was granted permanent Commission in 1968 with seniority effective from 14th October, 1965. He, therefore, belongs to 1965 batch. At the relevant time, he was promoted to the post of Lieutenant Colonel. In 1978 the petitioner was posted as Research and Trial Officer in the Army/ Air Transport Support School at Agra which is equivalent to the rank of Major. In 1983, No.4 Selection Board sat for selection for promotion from the post of Major to the post of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col) for 1965 Batch. The case of the petitioner was also considered. He was informed by a letter dt. 31/5/1983 that his case has been considered for promotion as a fresh case, but had not been placed in an acceptable Grade for promotion.
(3.)Being aggrieved, he filed a statutory complaint to the Competent Authority by its petition dated 31st July, 1983. In the said statutory complaint the petitioner has taken grievances, inter alia, that the report of the I.O., R.O. and S.R.O. during his appointment as Research and Trial Officer in 1979 in Agra have damaged his profile for no fault of his and may not be given due weightage and be set aside. The petitioner also expressed his apprehension that the initiating Officer might have given a Luke-warm report for the ACRs of 1978-79 by judging him on instructural duties; instead of taking him as Research and Trial Officer. He has also taken grievance that during the entire period of his stay in Agra School, his Reviewing Officer visited him only once in June, 1978 and therefore petitioner's ACRs might have been based on the Initiating officer only. In paragraph 42 of the statutory complaint, the follow- ing reliefs were sought;
"I, therefore pray, that if anything has gone wrong during 1978-79, the period when confidential reports were not shown, then these reports by initiating officer and others Superior Reporting officer be reviewed in the correct perspective and if these are out of tune with my career profile, these be set aside. Also the technical correctness of who should have been my R.O. for ICR initiated in Jan. 1978, be checked and corrective action if any, taken.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.