MRITUNJAY KUMAR GST CASE LAW- TIME LIMIT FOR ITC

MRITUNJAY KUMAR GST CASE LAW- TIME LIMIT FOR ITC

DELHI HIGH COURT

Mritunjay Kumar
vs
Union of India & Ors.

W.P.(C) 8908/2022
Date of judgement/order : 24th September 2024

BACKGROUND

1. The relevant facts pertaining to the present petition are that the petitioner joined the CRPF as an Assistant Commandant (AC) on 08.10.2005 through direct recruitment and was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant (DC) in August 2012. The controversy at hand developed when the petitioner was posted to 22nd Battalion (Bn.), Hazaribagh, Jharkhand on 01.09.2016, under the command of respondent no. 4 i.e. Mr. Vishnu Gautam who, as per the petitioner, put undue pressure on him to commit illegal activities, such as planting weapons on the persons apprehended/arrested during the normal course in order to falsely frame them as Naxalites. This, he claimed, was with an intention to improve the Commandant’s standing with his superiors and to gain their favours.
2. However, as the petitioner did not succumb to this undue pressure, the respondent no. 4 threatened to ruin his career by tarnishing his APAR and by issuing baseless warnings, if he does not cooperate in the said illegal activities. Being faced with this predicament, the petitioner from February, 2018 till 2019, had complained against the ill-treatment and biased attitude of the Commandant, which was solely on the basis of refusal of the petitioner in participating in the said illegal activities/practices.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.07.2019 against the adverse remarks and downgrading in the said APAR by the Reporting Officer/respondent no. 4 to the Special DG, CRPF, which downgrading, he claimed, was on the account of vindictive behavior of the respondent no. 4. The aforesaid representation was rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2020 and his further request for personal audience with respect to the aforesaid representation was also rejected vide another impugned order dated 03.09.2021, thus, leading to filing of the present petition.

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS

Para 4. Unsettled by this position, the petitioner filed two complaints, both dated 20.07.2018 against the said Commandant, who was also his Reporting Officer, to the Director General (DG) and the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CRPF, highlighting the threats made by the respondent no. 4 in deliberately spoiling petitioner’s APAR, for which he did not receive any response from the authorities.

Para 5. In October, 2018, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of 2-I/C and has since been serving his duties in the said rank. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.06.2019, the petitioner was communicated his impugned APAR wherein he was graded ‘Good’ for the period from 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 which also contained adverse remarks by the Commandant/Reporting Officer.

Para 12. He contended that there was a blatant non-application of mind in writing the APAR, as both the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority, apart from concurring with the grading given by the Reporting Officer, did not provide sufficient reasoning or findings while also being in agreement with the pen picture of the Reporting Officer. Moreso, the Accepting Authority has not even bothered to see the relevant period for which the APAR was recorded as he has incorrectly mentioned the period at two places while recording the petitioner’s assessment.

Para 20. We have carefully considered the submissions addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the record submitted before us.

Para 21. As it emerges from the aforesaid conspectus of facts, the controversy in the present case pertains to the downgrading of petitioner’s APAR for the impugned period. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no. 4 was biased and his APAR was written in the most negligent and casual manner, thereby affecting his career progression.

At the outset, we may proceed to deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the procedural defect in recording of the impugned APAR that as the petitioner was not commissioned under the respondent no. 4 for a period of three months, he lacked the authority to record his APAR.

Para 28. In view of the aforesaid dictum of law, it is clear that the recording of remarks in APAR should not be vindictive or with a motive to downgrade the subordinate, which may cause serious repercussions in the career advancement of such a subordinate. Moreover, the grading of a member of the Force, in the midst of consistent ‘Very Good’/ ‘Outstanding’ gradings, cannot, without any justifiable reason, drop down to ‘Good’ in a short duration with the officer again being awarded higher gradings immediately in the subsequent APARs.

“xxiii. That on 07/08.12.2017 an encounter with Naxalites took place at Ulhara village Jharkhand, under the supervision and command of petitioner. The operation was successfully executed. Despite the recommendation from higher authorities for gallantry award to petitioner and his team, same was deliberately put in cold box by Commandant Mr Vishnu Gautam.”

“xxviii. That when the superior authority started asking questions from Commandant Mr. Vishnu Gautam in response to the complaints made by the petitioner against him, then one day he got irritated and in presence of Assistant Commandant Mr. Prafull Madeshikar stated “because of the dogs officers like Mritunjay and Vibhuti my reputation and units atmosphere is getting degraded”. It was submitted by the petitioner vide letter/complaint dated 20.07.2018 that the same fact can be verified from Mr Prafuii Madeshikar.”