Ic-3450f Major Ashok Kumar Pant v. Union Of India (uoi) And Others

K. Ramamoorthy, J.The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the findings in interim confidential report pertaining to the period 1.6.1993 to 7.12.1993;

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a Special Promotion Board and to grant the petitioner consequential benefits on merits and based on his overall profile in service;

c) issue directions for placing the original copy of the Court of Enquiry findings as well as the evidence recorded in the Court of Enquiry;

d) direct the respondents to order enquiry into the loss of classified documents and also inform the Court about the punishment given to the officers responsible for the loss of the documents:"

2. The case in short of the petitioner is that he has been maintaining good record of service and the interim confidential report pertaining to the period 1.6.1993 to 7.12.1993 has been made by the 4th respondent who was later on deleted from the array of the parties, with a view to prejudicing the career of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a non statutory complaint and partial relief was granted. He also preferred a statutory complaint and that was also rejected by order dated 26.6.1996. According to him, there was a Court of Inquiry from which crucial facts emerged which had been ignored by the respondents. In the counter, the respondents have explained the position. It is stated that in November 1994 his case was considered for promotion as a fresh case and then it was rejected. In the first review in August 1995 his case was rejected and in the final review in February 1996 his case was rejected. He was not found fit.

3. I have perused the records to satisfy whether the relevant facts have been taken into account. I am satisfied that the respondents had acted in accordance with law and the petitioner has not made out any case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jagat Singh referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in Gurinder Jit Singh v. Union of India and Ors., MLJ 1997 Calcutta 200 and the judgment in Shri J.R. Jain v. Union of India and Ors. 1973 (2) SLR 309.

5. I do not find any ratio decidedly in those two cases which could be applied to the facts of this case. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.