PBOR denied justice: The endless litigation endures

Dear Brig Kamboj,
May I request you to put the following in "REPORT MY SIGNALS" blog to show to the readers apathy on the part of our serving officers and the COAS concerning PBOR:

"A Havildar filed a writ petition in 1990 in the Delhi High Court wherein he challenged the ACR of 1987 (wherein he was graded "High Average") on the ground that the same could not be considered for his promotion to Naib Subedar as he had not completed 90 days under the IO. The last five ACRs considered were of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. In these five ACRs he had two "Above Average" and three "High Average" reports. In 1984 ACR as well as in 1990 ACR the Havildar had been graded "Above Average". San 1987 A.C.R. the Havildar met the criteria of "Three Above Average and Two High Average reports" in the last five years whether the 1984 or the 1990 report is considered.

In reply, with a view to prove that the NCO did put in 90 days under the I.O., the Record Officer forged the entry relating to the "Period of Service" under the I.O. and produced the ACR in the Court. However, the High Court found the entry relating the period of service under the I.O. had been tampered/ forged. The writ petition was admitted on this ground alone way back in 1990.

The writ was finally decided in November 2008 in favour of the NCO. The High Court held that the "period of service" in 1987 report was in fact tampered and struck down the 1987 ACR. The High Court directed the COAS and others to reconsider the Havildar for promotion to Naib Subedar in 1990 sans the 1987 report.

However, the COAS instead of considering either of 1984 or 1990 report (both "Above Average") chose to consider 1983 report (a "High Average Report") just to deny the promotion to the NCO! What will be the result? Another writ petition will have to be filed. This is how the Courts get flooded with avoidable litigation.

I ask myself a question "can an NCO afford to file yet another writ petition" and more importantly, the earlier case having taken 19 years to decide, can he wait or even live till he gets justice.

While we criticize the Government for its apathy, is there no apathy nearer home? Was the COAS not obliged to proceed against the forger of the ACR entry (Record Officer) and punish him for his misdemeanour? Was he not required to do justice by considering 1984 report? Why did he choose 1983 report when it did not fall within the "Last Five Years" by any standard? Was it just to deny a promotion to a poor Havildar? It is time we carry out introspection.
Lt Col MG Kapoor, Veteran
Practicing Law in Delhi High Court