Isabella Mariam

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, has directed the Border Security Force (BSF) to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for a Deputy Commandant after quashing adverse remarks made in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2014-15. The court observed that the integrity remark recorded by the Reviewing Officer lacked evidentiary support and was inconsistent with procedural norms.

The petitioner, a Deputy Commandant in the BSF, sought judicial redress under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the issuance of a writ mandating the respondent to grant due seniority, extend parity in cadre benefits, and annul the APAR for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner also sought other consequential reliefs, including retrospective promotion.

Also Read: “Absence of Motive Cannot Result in Acquittal When Circumstances Are Convincing” | Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Complete Chain of Evidence

The petitioner joined the BSF as an Assistant Commandant on 10 May 1997 and was promoted to Deputy Commandant on 16 February 2004. In October 2013, he was posted to Sector Headquarters, BSF Barmer. Allegations concerning mess management and liquor distribution irregularities surfaced in late 2014 through a complaint forwarded to the Frontier HQ, Gujarat.

A Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) was constituted in November 2014 to investigate five charges against the petitioner. The SCOI exonerated the petitioner of four charges and, with respect to the fifth—non-issue of liquor in the ORs Mess—attributed blameworthy supervisory lapses, recommending a lenient view due to overcommitment at SHQ.

Subsequently, the Inspector General recommended issuance of a Director General's (DG) Displeasure, formalised through a Show Cause Notice issued on 5 October 2015. Following the petitioner's reply, the DG Displeasure was issued on 14 January 2016.

Concurrently, the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks in his APAR for 2014-15 via letter dated 1 September 2015. While the Reporting Officer marked the petitioner as "Very Good," the Reviewing Officer downgraded him to "Good," declaring him a "person of doubtful integrity" based on alleged complaints and a vigilance inquiry. This led to the petitioner's non-selection in DPC meetings held between 2016 and 2019.

The petitioner submitted multiple representations, which were dismissed by the Special DG (Western Command), the DG BSF, and the Home Secretary. The final representation was rejected on 24 July 2018.

The petitioner’s counsel, Dr. S. S. Hooda, contended that the adverse integrity remark was recorded while the vigilance inquiry was pending and in contravention of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ APAR Instructions, 2012. It was submitted that the DG’s Displeasure is not a recognised penalty under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and hence should not have influenced the APAR or promotion decisions.

It was further argued that Paragraph 2.23 of the APAR Procedure mandates that entries relating to penalties must correspond to the year in which the penalty is imposed. Since the DG’s Displeasure was issued in January 2016, it was asserted that it should not have affected the 2014-15 APAR. Additionally, the Reviewing Officer’s lack of reasoning when disagreeing with the Reporting Officer's assessment was cited as contrary to Paragraph 2.33 of the APAR Instructions.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Shushil Kumar Pandey, argued that the APAR entries and denial of promotion were justified in view of the petitioner’s supervisory lapses and DG’s Displeasure. It was further submitted that the Reviewing Officer adhered to prescribed responsibilities under Paragraph 2.29 of the APAR Procedure.

The court observed that the petitioner had been completely exonerated of four of the five charges and even in the remaining charge, the SCOI recommended leniency. The Court recorded: "...petitioner was exonerated of Charge-I, Charge-II, Charge-IV and Charge-V. With respect to Charge-III, he was found blameworthy for the supervisory lapses... However, taking into consideration of his over commitments, the Court recommends that lenient view should be taken..."

The bench noted that the DG's Displeasure, dated January 2016, postdated the assessment period of the 2014-15 APAR, thus could not form part of that year’s evaluation. Referring to Paragraph 2.23 of the APAR Procedure, the Court recorded: "An entry relating to a penalty should be recorded in the report for the year in which punishment order is issued."

It further noted that the adverse integrity remark was made without substantiating complaints or concluded findings, stating: "...not even a single complaint has been annexed with the note recorded by the Reviewing Officer... we are unable to comprehend the basis on which the petitioner was assessed as being of 'doubtful integrity'."

Also Read: Preventive Detention as Punitive Imprisonment is Legally Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes Order for Suppression of Bail Order and Absence of Supporting Material

The Court also considered the 2015-16 APAR, where the petitioner received a "Very Good" grading despite the DG's Displeasure being in place. The Court found this inconsistent with the earlier adverse remark.

Accordingly, it was recorded: "...we have no hesitation in holding that there was a lack of objectivity on the part of the Reviewing Officer... The same, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly, quashed."

The Court directed: "...respondents to constitute a review DPC to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion retrospectively, and if found fit, promotion be granted to him from the due date. In such case, the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits arising therefrom. Let the exercise in terms of this order be concluded within 12 weeks."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Dr. S. S. Hooda and Ms. Rashmi Rawat

For the Respondents: Mr. Shushil Kumar Pandey (SPC) with Mr. Hement Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sarvesh Srivastav (GP)

Case Title: Rajendra Yadav vs. The Director General, Border Security Force

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2811-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 4662/2017

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur

[Read/Download order]