WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 1. please refer to your letter No PERS/MNB/AR- 175/03/09 dated 03 rd Oct, 2003 addressed to Hon’ble President Government of India, Rastrapati Bhawan, New Delhi with copy to Hon’ble Home Minister and Hon’ble Law Minister, New Delhi. 2. It is for kind information that your case has been examined in detail. As per the existing policy vide Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 25013/14/77-Estt(A) Dated 05 Jan 78, 25013/30/85- Estt(A) dated 7/8 August 85 and GoM(Group of Ministers) reported on “ REFORMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM” the case was placed before the Review Committee to asses the suitability for retention in service beyond the age of 50 years. The Review Committee had not considered your further retention in service beyond 50 years of age and as such the you were sent on pre-mature retirement from service under FR 56(j). 3. In view of above, you can not be re-instated in service as requested for. Sd/-(KK Chopra) Colonel, Colonnel(Military Secretary) For Director General, Assam Rifles. Copy to: Shri A Samuel for information please Under Secretary(P), President’s Secretariat Public-1 Section, Rastrapati Bhawan New Delhi 110004 The Secretary to the Govt of India do (Pers III) Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi-110001” The above order makes it clear that the authority considered the submission of the appellant petitioner and rejected the same. In our considered opinion, for the reasons set forth above, the decision so taken by the appropriate authority does not call for interference. 8. Let us now come to the other part of the appellant petitioner‟s case i.e. non-consideration of his promotion by the respondents in the year 1998 alongwith his other batch mates. Learned Single Judge did not record any observation
9 regarding that prayer of the appellant. Since the issue has been agitated before us, we think, we should dispose of it on merit without referring it again to the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned counsel of the appellant Mr.Bhattacharyya has strenuously argued that the petitioner was denied due promotion without any valid reason inspite of the fact that all criteria for promotion were fulfilled by the appellant petitioner. He has also submitted that in the year, 1988, the petitioner was categorised in <strong>SH</strong>APE-1medical category i.e S1H1A1P1E1 and refusal of his promotion was a blow to his unblemished service carrier. Learned counsel also contended that the annual confidential report of the year 1998 was considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 27.3.1998, was not at all true in view of the fact that ACR of the year 1998 was not in existence on the date of DPC meeting. On the contrary, learned CGC has submitted that before the date of DPC meeting held on 27.3.1998, the petitioner appellant was categorised as of low medical category and the subsequent categorisation as prayed by the petitioner appellant was not before the DPC held on 27.3.1998. The Departmental enquiry was initiated against him on various charges and that two of the charges i.e. for not adhering to the Rules and procedure and borrowing money from subordinate were proved against the appellant petitioner and therefore he was not recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. We have considered the rival contention and examined the documents placed on record. In course of hearing copies of minutes of DPC meeting held on 27.3.1998 for promotion of Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant with copies of some relevant Rules and procedure were also produced by learned CGC and on going
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COU
Page 3 and 4: 3 in Umedbhai M. Patel(supra), I fi
Page 5 and 6: INTERNAL 6. MS Branch 7. Record Bra
Page 7: 7 also been made known to the petit
Page 11 and 12: 11 doubt. The internal assessment m
Page 13: 13 petitioner was fit for duties no

WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?