Arun Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) :- This Writ Petition was moved by the petitioner claiming promotion. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Security Guard on 15.12.1970. After his training he was posted at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bihar. Thereafter, the petitioner served I.S.R.O., Thumba in Trivandran, Cochin Shipyard in Cochin and Vishakhapatnam Port Trust. Thereafter the petitioner was posted in industrial security force unit at Calcutta Port Trust in 'A' Company under the respondent No.4. In the year 1977 when the petitioner was in Cochin Port Trust he passed the promotion cadre test conducted on 23.4.1977 and according to the petitioner that information was communicated to him through memo dated 3.6.1977 which has been made Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition. In the year 1977 Central Industrial Security Force, Security Guard Association was formed in accordance with C.I.S.F. Act and Rules and the petitioner took an active part in the formation of the said association.
(2.) Though the petitioner passed the departmental examination for promotion to the next higher grade in order to forestall the promotion only, for the purpose of petitioner participation for the formation of association some remarks were recorded which was considered as adverse remarks and was communicated to the petitioner on 31.1.1978. On receipt of the said adverse remarks the petitioner made representation before the assistant commandant and prayed for a favour regarding specific date and specific occasion when the petitioner was found to be oversmart and/or argumentative in order to enable the petitioner to submit an effective representation against the alleged adverse remarks. According to the petitioner that was supplied to him and the petitioner could not submit any representation. On 19.2.1979 copy of annual remarks for the year 1978 was communicated to the petitioner considering the adverse remarks. From a plain reading of the adverse remarks it would reveal that the petitioner is an intelligent security guard and the petitioner's duty performance is also satisfactory. Copies of the adverse remarks communicated through letter dated 31.1.1978 and 9.2.1979 have been made Annexure 'B' to the Writ Petition. The annual remarks for the year 1978 was considered as adverse only for the purpose of denying the petitioner the right for promotion. According to the petitioner it would appear from the above facts that the annual confidential remarks were recorded in a very superfluous manner. According to the petitioner, performance of the petitioner were and are satisfactory.
(3.) After passing the promotion cadre test, the petitioner was fully qualified for promotion. Moreover, his service record was without any blemish. On 15.1.1982 the petitioner was informed that he was not declared fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. But neither the authorities nor the Departmental Promotion Committee did record any reason as to why the petitioner was declared unfit for promotion. Long after on 23.5.1984 along with the Annual Confidential Report of the year 1983 the petitioner was informed of the adverse remark recorded against the petitioner in the year 1979. The adverse remark states that the petitioner was actively associated with the agitation of the security guards. According to the petitioner, there may be an adverse remark relating to a specific incident but this should not find place in a character role unless in the course of departmental proceedings to a specific punishment such as censure has been awarded only on the basis of such an incident. Even after a departmental proceeding is not held, reasonable opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to explain the case relating to the incident before the matter is entered into the character sole. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the Annual Confidential Report conveyed on 23.5.1984 as Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition.;