2026:JHHC:20405 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3012 of 2019 ….….. Binod Kumar Singh son of Shri Balram Prasad Singh, aged about 49 years, resident of Pouria, P.O. Supore, Jamua, via. Tarapur, P.S. Sangrampur, District Munger, Bihar. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. North Block, Delhi. 2. Director General, Indo Tibetan Boarder Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Block No.-2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Inspector General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (Headquarters), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Block No.-2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. 4. Deputy Inspector General (APAR Cell & Pers.), Directorate General, Indo-Tibetan Boarder Police, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Block No.-II, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. 5. Assistant Commandant (S.O.), ACR Cell, for Inspector General (HQ), Office of the Directorate General, ITB Police, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Block No.-2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. 6. Commandant, 18th Bn. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Kathaula, Gauspur, behind Bamrauli, P.O. & P.S. Bamrauli, Air Force Station, Allahabad PIN- 211012. 7. The Commandant, 40th Battalion, Indo-Tibetan- Boarder Police Force, Sukurhattu, P.O. and P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi. 8. Shri Ishwar Singh Duhan, DIG NW frontier, ITBP, Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, Seema Nagar (near Air Port) P.S.-Seema Nagar, Chandigarh (UT) PIN-160003. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, CGC C.A.V. ON: 17/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:10/07/2026 2026:JHHC:20405 2 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; (i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s) specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order as contained in memo no. 1-17012/(3)/2006/APAR Cell:374, dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure-13 to this writ application), whereby and where under the respondent no.4 has been pleased to pass a fresh order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, after the earlier order dated 26.06.2007 was quashed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2011, rejecting it without taking into consideration the pleas that the petitioner raised in his memorandum of appeal dated 21.03.2007. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the next higher rank i.e. from the post of Medical officer (Assistant Commandant rank) to Senior Medical Officer (Deputy Commandant rank) on the due date of completion of 4 years of services counting from the date of his appointment as Assistant Commandant (MO) i.e. 10.03.2003, but, however, the case of the petitioner was not considered in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee only due to the adverse entry remarks (ACR for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005) notified vide memorandum dated 29.08.2006, and further to grant subsequent promotions to the higher posts of Chief Medical Officer (2nd in command rank) on the due date counting 15 years of regular service from the date of appointment, that even though the Petitioner has been promoted to these posts but belatedly which has affected his future promotions. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the date when the juniors and similarly situated employees have been granted promotion, and in addition to this to grant the consequential benefits of seniority and monetary, etc. And/Or (iv) For the issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer (Asst Commandant) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) on 10.03.2003. While he was 2026:JHHC:20405 3 posted at the Ministry Headquarters, Jalandhar, from 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005, the petitioner was allegedly asked by his Commandant I.S. Duhan under whom he was serving to get involved in certain irregular activities including signing bills against which the petitioner refused and complained about it vide letters dated 25.05.2005 and 05.07.2005. 4. Thereafter, the Reporting Officer recorded adverse remarks in the petitioner's APAR/ACR for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 and these remarks were communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 29.08.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.10.2006 seeking expunction of the adverse entries, but the said representation was rejected on 12.02.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal dated 21.03.2007, which was also rejected vide order dated 26.06.2007. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a Warning Memorandum dated 26.12.2005 alleging that he had instigated a subordinate official to undertake a hunger strike. However, upon being challenged by the petitioner it was withdrawn and consequently, the negative entries only under the head of “ability to inspire confidence and to get best out of the staff” was expunged from his ACR. 2026:JHHC:20405 4 6. As per the petitioner, the Warning Memorandum and the adverse APAR/ACR entries formed part of the same biased course of action adopted against him as the Warning Memo was also drawn on the reporting of Commandant I.S. Duhan. 7. Further, despite withdrawal of the Warning Memorandum and expunction of the related adverse remark, the remaining adverse entries were retained and continued to adversely affect his service career. The petitioner completed the requisite qualifying service, i.e., 4 years for promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer on 10.03.2007. However, owing to the adverse APAR entries, his case was not favourably considered on time by the Departmental Promotion Committee; whereas officers junior to him were promoted. 8. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal against the adverse APAR entries, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2011. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 19.08.2017, whereby the appellate order dated 26.06.2007 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, the respondents reconsidered the matter but again rejected the petitioner's appeal vide Memo No. I-17012(3)/2006/APAR Cell:374 2026:JHHC:20405 5 dated 07.11.2017. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 has been passed without proper consideration of the grounds urged by him, including his plea regarding bias and arbitrariness in recording the adverse APAR. Being aggrieved by the said order and the consequential denial of timely promotion, seniority and other service benefits, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the adverse APAR for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 was out of personal animosity after the petitioner made complaints against him on 25.05.2005 and 05.07.2005; and the Warning Memorandum dated 26.12.2005 and the adverse APAR/ACR entries originated from the same biased conduct of the Reporting Officer. 11. He further submitted that though W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2011 was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the respondents, while passing the order dated 07.11.2017, merely reiterated the earlier conclusion without meaningfully addressing the issues highlighted by the Court. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the Reporting Officer initially 2026:JHHC:20405 6 assessed the petitioner as ‘Below Average’, but the Reviewing Officer (DIG M.S. Burji) upgraded the grading to ‘Average’, which was thereafter accepted by the Accepting Authority (IG Rajiv Mehta), thus, the final assessment was the result of independent consideration by superior authorities and not the unilateral opinion of the Reporting Officer. 13. He lastly submitted that in W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2011, this Court merely quashed the earlier appellate order of 26.06.2007 for being non-speaking and the Court did not expunge the APAR or hold the adverse remarks to be illegal, and the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 is a reasoned and lawful order rendered after reconsidering the entire matter. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force and he had previously moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2011 against the adverse ACR recorded for the period from 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005, and the writ was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 07.11.2017, merely reiterated the earlier conclusion without meaningfully addressing the 2026:JHHC:20405 7 issues highlighted by the Court. 15. The petitioner has contended that the said adverse entries were recorded on account of personal bias and mala fides of the Reporting Officer, which ultimately resulted in denial of his timely promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the final ACR was arrived at after due consideration by the Reviewing and Accepting Authorities, and the petitioner's statutory appeal has been decided by a reasoned order. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the principal issue which falls for consideration is whether the adverse ACR for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 is vitiated by mala-fides, bias, arbitrariness or non-application of mind and whether the respondents have duly considered the petitioner's objections afresh while passing the impugned order. 17. At the outset, it appears that the writ court in W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2011 vide order dated 19.08.2017 had directed the Director General of ITBP to pass a fresh reasoned order keeping into account the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in the Memo of Appeal, i.e., dated 21.03.2007; however, on perusal of the impugned order dated 07.11.2017, this Court finds that once again the concerned respondent has passed the order without 2026:JHHC:20405 8 adequately considering the specific contentions raised by the petitioner. 18. It further transpires from the impugned order that while considering the case afresh what has been done is the mere reiteration of the claims of the Reported Officer and the counter-reply of the Reporting Officer. Having regard to this, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is in no way a reasoned order, inasmuch as, the concerned respondent has not taken into account the pleas that the petitioner raised in his memorandum of appeal dated 21.03.2007 and the concerned respondent has nowhere brought into consideration the further remarks and review done by the authorities. 19. On perusal of the materials on record, it comes into picture that the Reporting Officer namely Ishwar Singh Duhan was also alleged to be biased in another case being W.P.(C) 2825/2012 filed before the High Court of Delhi wherein while he was posted as Commandant he was alleged to have acted with malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading awarded to the petitioner therein namely Anil Kumar Akarnia and in that case the High Court of Delhi had given specific direction to the respondent to re-examine the records and write fresh ACR grading by the competent authority in place of the third respondent. 2026:JHHC:20405 9 20. In view of the above instance and the noting in the impugned order wherein the comments of the very Reporting Officer has been made basis for the reasoning in the fresh order which was already in question having conflict of interest and, thus, the impugned order issued from public functionary cannot sustain failing on the grounds of unbiasedness and fairness, and further no reference has been made to the specific contentions made in the Memo of Appeal dated 21.03.2007 wherein the petitioner has given counter-replies to the respondent including one of the reasons with regard to not being on good terms with Commandant Ishwar Singh Duhan after non-compliance of his allegedly unethical instruction which led to marking of adverse remarks in the petitioner’s ACR. 21. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter should be re- examined and that the respondent’s decision shall be free from bias and while taking into consideration the petitioner’s case, the very comments of the Reporting Officer in question shall not come in way, and as such, any further consideration by the respondent shall be free from the adverse remarks of the said officer having likelihood of biasness. 22. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in 2026:JHHC:20405 10 memo no. 1-17012/(3)/2006/APAR Cell:374, dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure-13 to this writ application), whereby and where under the respondent no.4 has passed a fresh order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner by rejecting his claim; is hereby, quashed and set-aside. 23. The Respondent No.2 is directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into account the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in the Memo of Appeal dated 21.03.2007 keeping in view that the considerations are not based on the comments of the very same Reporting Officer only and it would be desirable that any other supervising Commandant of the contemporaneous period of the incident, if still serving in the ITBP, re-examine the relevant records of the petitioner and record the ACR for the concerned period. 24. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 25. The writ application is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:10/07/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 10.07.2026