Aridam Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner was up for crossing the efficiency bar as on 1st April, 1987. He was found unfit to cross the bar. He then again sought to cross the bar in the next year and did cross it. 10 years later he made a representation dated 26th October, 1999 stating, inter alia, there was no reason for preventing him from crossing the efficiency bar as on 1st April, 1987. In that representation he also stated he had received only one censure on the ground of slackness by a communication dated 21st September, 1986. It appears, the said representation was neither followed up by the petitioner nor considered. He then made yet another representation in the year 2001 which was rejected as being devoid of merit by communication dated 14th May, 2001. Hence this writ petition praying for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in which the petitioner had not been allowed to cross the efficiency bar as on 1st April, 1987.
(2.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and draws attention to the communication dated 14th May, 2001. He submits, the reason for rejection of the representation, as would appear therefrom, was that in consideration of overall service records of his client he was found unfit to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1st April, 1987. It would further appear that the Authority considering the representation found that the Board member had assessed his client correctly and due to his poor service record he was declared unfit to cross efficiency bar. Mr. Chakraborty submits, there was no communication of any adverse remark in the service record of his client as made to him. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 in particular to paragraph 17 therein as is set out below:- 17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely effect the employee in two ways (1) had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future; (2) he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its up gradation. Hence, non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) He submits, therefore, the decision of the DPC in preventing his client from crossing the efficiency bar as on 1st April, 1987 could not be sustained and should be set aside.;