Nand Kishore Singh @ Nanda Kishore v Union of India

W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19186 OF 2016(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **NAND KISHORE SINGH @ NANDA KISHORE AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. CHEEDI LAL, 8-10, CISF COMPLEX, NTPC, KAYAMKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE 13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003. 3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF(SZ) HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI, PIN 600004. 4 THE UNIT COMMANDER, CISF UNIT, N.T.P.C KAYAMKULAM 690 502. R1 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).40962/2016(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.40962 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **NAND KISHORE SINGH @ NANDA KISHORE AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. CHEEDI LAL,8-10, CISF COMPLEX, NTPC, KAYAMKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NORTH BLOCK,**| ||**CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI - 110 001,**| ||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR GENERAL**| ||**CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,**| ||**13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 003.**| |**3**|**THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL**| ||**CISF (SZ) HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI,**| ||**PIN - 600 004.**| |**4**|**THE UNIT COMMANDER,**| ||**CISF UNIT, N.T.P.C, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502.**| ||**R1-4 BY SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).19186/2016(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------W.P(C) Nos.19186 of 2016-W and 40962 of 2016-U ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2020_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ Both these Writ Petitions are filed by the very same petitioner who is a Constable Driver in CISF. W.P(C).No.19186/2016 is filed aggrieved by the denial of promotion as Head Constable and W.P(C).No.40962/2016 is filed challenging grading in the annual performance assessment reports. W.P(C).No.19186 of 2016 2. The petitioner commenced his service in CISF as a Cook on 09.11.2000. On qualifying in the departmental test he was appointed as a Constable Driver on 29.09.2006. For promotion as Head Constable, the Constables have to attend promotion cadre course (PCC) during which they have to pass written test, physical training etc. The petitioner attended PCC in March, 2011. He complains that on completion of the course in 2011, he was not informed of the results of the test and that he came to know about the results only when the qualified hands were being considered for promotion. He thereafter attended the course and passed the supplementary examination in physical training conducted from 09.04.2012 to 13.04.2012. Based on that he was included in Ext.P2 list of qualified hands, published on 20.04.2012 at rank No.29. In the meanwhile, on W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 4 04.02.2012, he had submitted Ext.P3 representation complaining that the results of the test held in the year 2011, were not published. By Ext.P4 letter dated 21.09.2012 it was informed that the petitioner can be given promotion during 2013 as per DPC since he was declared qualified by that time. The petitioner submits that thereafter his case was considered by the next DPC and he was included at sl.no.2 in Ext.P5 list published along with proceedings dated 21.11.2013. 3. However, the petitioner points out that despite his inclusion in Ext.P5 list of Constable Drivers found fit for promotion to the rank of Head Constable Drivers, 2013, he was not granted promotion on account of the arbitrary conditions stipulated in Ext.P5. He thereupon submitted a representation dated 12.4.2014 requesting for promotion. By Ext.P6 letter it was informed that he cannot be promoted since a penalty was awarded to him after the DPC met and therefore as per CISF circular No.16/2013 dt.8.7.2013 he can be promoted only when he is completely exonerated of the charges. It was further stated that the DPC which met in 2014 did not find him fit for promotion since he was already awarded 2 minor punishments in the preceding 5 years, in view of instructions contained in CISF circular No.44/2011 dated 14.10.2011. The petitioner has stated that a memo was issued to him on 15.3.2012 which was followed by a charge sheet dated 20.03.2012 in connection with misuse of vehicle inside the premises, which culminated in a minor punishment awarded on 20.04.2012. Thereafter he was again charge sheeted on 10.10.2013 which also ended in a punishment as per order W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 5 dated 17.11.2013. The petitioner was denied promotion stating that a punishment was awarded to him after DPC found him fit but before his actual promotion. The petitioner claims that in identical circumstances the High Court of Orissa has in the judgment Ext.P7 held that promotion cannot be denied on flimsy grounds once DPC has granted promotion. Though petitioner submitted Ext P8 representation seeking the benefit of that judgment, it was rejected as per Ext.P9 letter stating that the said judgment is not applicable. W.P.(C) No. 19186/2016 is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P9 communications and claiming that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ext P7 judgment. The relief sought are the following: _“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from 2012 onwards._ _ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the precondition in exhibit P5 as illegal._ _iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing exhibit P6 and exhibit P9 orders._ _iv) grant such other reliefs which are just and reasonable under the nature and circumstances of the case.”_ 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was detailed for PCC from Constable Driver to Head Constable Driver at CISF Recruit Training Centre, Bhilai from 07.3.2011 to 19.3.2011. It is stated that the results of the course were published on 18.04.2011 and that the petitioner had failed in the physical training module of the course. Therefore, when departmental promotion committee for 2012 was convened on 18.01.2012, he was not included. It is stated that after he got qualified in the physical training W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 6 module as per Ext.P2 proceedings in April 2012, the DPC which was held on 18.01.2013 considered his case and he was found fit. It is stated that before the promotions were ordered he was awarded a punishment of `7 days' pay fine' as per order dated 07.11.2013. The punishment was later modified as censure as per order dated 18.05.2014, by the appellate authority. It is stated that even though the DPC had found him fit for promotion and had earmarked him for posting in South Sector, promotion was not granted to him because he was awarded a punishment after the DPC had drawn the list but before actual promotion was granted. It is stated that as per Ext.R4(a) letter dated 05.12.2013 petitioner was informed that promotion was not permissible in view of the circular No.16/2013 dated 8.7.2013 and circular No.44/2011 dated14.10.2011. It is stated that though as per Ext.R4(b) letter dated 20.04.2012, the petitioner was informed that his case would be considered by the DPC as he had passed the supplementary test and he was found fit by the DPC which met on 18.01.2013, promotion was not granted to him in the year 2013 because of the punishment awarded to him after finalising the DPC and before the actual promotion. In the year 2014, the DPC found him unfit because he was having 2 minor punishments during the last 5 years from the date on which the DPC was convened i.e 08.01.2014. It is their further case that the grant of promotion is subject to the conditions stipulated in the circulars issued by the CISF and petitioner cannot insist promotion merely on the ground of inclusion of his name in the list drawn by the DPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the denial of W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 7 promotion to the petitioner on the ground of minor punishments of censure is arbitrary and petitioner is being denied promotion as he continues to face one or other disciplinary action every year. 6. On the other hand, Smt.O.M.Shalina, the learned CGC argued that the case of the petitioner was considered strictly in accordance with the rules and orders. She points out that at the relevant time when the petitioner was considered by the DPC in January 2013, there was only one penalty as against the petitioner within the 5 years period, and he was included in the list after deducting 5 marks towards the penalty; but thereafter he was awarded another minor punishment; promotion can be granted only on fulfillment of all the conditions which are stipulated in various circulars, which are issued in tune with the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. It is pointed out that while including the petitioner in Ext.P5 list of Constables found fit by DPC, it was ordered that promotion would be granted only on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. One such condition is that there would not be any promotion during the currency of any punishment. A person should have been graded good for the last 5 years; there should not be 2 minor punishments awarded to him during the past 5 years and there shall also not be major penalty during the years. The petitioner did not fulfill all such conditions. It is also pointed out that any minor punishment including censure during the 5 year period preceding the date of promotion would be a bar for promotion, though no time limit is provided for the penalty of censure. W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 8 7. Having heard the contentions on either side, it is seen that the petitioner became eligible for promotion only after qualifying the supplementary test in physical training conducted in April 2012 and, on publication of Ext.P2 list on 20.04.2012. It is seen that DPC is being held in the month of January every year. Petitioner's case was considered by the next DPC convened in January, 2013 and he was found fit. However the petitioner himself has stated that he was chargesheeted on 10.10.2013 based on which another minor punishment was awarded to him on 17.11.2013, after the DPC found him fit for promotion. Even before that, a memo of charge was issued to him on 20.03.2012 which culminated in a minor punishment awarded on 20.04.2012. In Ext.P5 order, forwarding the list of Constables found fit by DPC, it was specifically directed that the controlling officers shall grant promotion to the officers included in the list only after ensuring that they fulfill the requirements specified in clauses (a) to (j) of para.2 of that order. Clause (e) of para.2 thereof provides that “promotion should not be given during the currency of punishment if any”. Clause (g) provides that “promotions should not be given in case an empanelled Constable (Dvr) is awarded any punishment after the DPC and before his/her actual promotion and that in such an event, the matter shall be referred to FHQrs (Estt.I) for deletion of his name from the panel as well as cancellation of his PCP. It is not disputed that the petitioner was already awarded a punishment when the DPC considered his case in January 2013. The 2[nd] punishment was awarded to him in 2013 after the publication of Ext.P5 list. Though it is seen that the punishments were modified subsequently as W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 9 censure, it is also a minor punishment. Moreover, the circulars Exts.P10 and P11 provide for the evaluation of candidates for the purpose of promotion. As per Clause 5 of Ext.P10 circular dated 14.10.2011, a Constable would not be eligible for promotion if his grading is average or below average; in other words, only a Constable with grading of `good' would be eligible for promotion. In order to ensure that only deserving and meritorious personnels are promoted, the procedure for evaluation of personnel for higher cadres in CISF was modified by Ext.P10 circular dated 14.10.2011 with effect from 01.01.2012. For those with grading of outstanding, very good, good, average/satisfactory and poor/below average were to be given marks at the rate of 15,13,11,05 and minus 10 respectively. For the eligibility of officers for promotion the following conditions were also prescribed: _05. In addition to the above the personnel who are considered for_ _promotion-_ - _(a) Should not have any major punishment in last 05 years;_ - _(b) His/Her last ACR should not be Below Average or Average;_ - _(c) Should not have two (or more) minor punishments in last 5 years;_ - _(d) Should not have two major punishments in the last ten years._ - _(e) Should not have a total of five (or more) minor and major punishments_ - _in the last 10 years. #_ _(f) The personnel having one minor punishment would be considered for promotion but five marks will be deducted for the minor punishment.”_ In Ext.P11 circular dated 08.07.2013, issued on the basis of the clarification received from DoPT, it was reiterated that promotion cannot be granted until the person is completely exonerated from the charge and that the recommendation of W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 10 DPC would not be acted upon in case any penalty is imposed on him subsequently before his actual promotion and that the question of his promotion would be considered by the next DPC. The aforesaid conditions are incorporated in Ext.R4(c) circular dated 22.12.2011 also. 8. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction that the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5 shall not be imposed on him, it is seen that those conditions form part of the circulars issued in Exts.P10, P11 and Ext.R4(c) circulars. There is no challenge against those circulars. Even otherwise it is for the employer to decide the conditions under which promotions can be granted, especially, in a disciplined force. In Ext.P10 circular it is stated that modification was brought about in order to ensure that only deserving and meritorious officers with commitment are promoted. The petitioner cannot insist that a person undergoing penalty has to be promoted. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5 do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. As pointed out by the learned CGC, the petitioner does not have any fundamental right for promotion, though he is having the fundamental right to be considered for promotion. That consideration can only be in accordance with the rules, regulations and orders in force. The petitioner is a member of a disciplined force. The following observations of the Apex Court in para.29 of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Union of India V K.V. Janki Raman**_ **:** (1991) 4 SCC 109 :AIR W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 11 ## 1991 SC 2010 are relevant in this context: _**“29.xxxxx** On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If, further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion.”_ 10. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Secretary, Labour and Employment and Anr. v. Cherian Kurian**_ [2019 (5) KHC 671] would also fortify this view. When the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5 as well as the circulars issued by the CISF, the mere fact that he was found fit by the DPC and was included in the list of candidates found fit for promotion by itself would not give rise to any claim to the petitioner for W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 12 promotion. It is seen that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC in accordance with the rules in subsequent years also, when he was again found unfit. 11. In the above circumstances of the case, no interference is required either to the conditions in Ext.P5 or on Exts.P6 or P9 letters. Accordingly, W.P(c).No.19186 of 2016 is dismissed. ## W.P(c).No.40962 of 2016 12. In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 annual performance appraisal report in respect of him and the order Ext.P4 by which his representation against it was rejected. 13. In Ext.P1 APAR for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, the overall numerical grading given to him by the reporting officer is 3.9. The reviewing authority has endorsed the same. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the group commandant, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 29.3.2016 stating that the reporting and reviewing officers have mentioned that they had warned the petitioner several times for not maintaining the vehicle properly; when he was detailed for Driver Refresher course scheduled from 30.11.2015 to 28.12.15, he intentionally reported sick to avoid the course in the last moment without intimation, on account of which the vacancy allotted to the unit could not be utilised. Therefore, it was found that the grading of `average' recorded in the APAR for 2016 was perfectly in order. 14. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P1 annual performance W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 13 assessment report for the period from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2014 the very same reporting officer has graded him as `good' with a score of 5.8. But the grading in subsequent years went down, in order to deny him promotion. According to him, the reporting officer failed to assess him properly. He pointed out that the reporting officer, who had given him 6 marks for his driving skill, had given only 5 marks for the next year and similarly he was given only 4 marks for personality in 2015 as against the 8 marks awarded to him in 2014. He points out that though it was stated in column 10 that he was not awarded any punishment during the assessment year, in Ext.P4 order it was stated he was awarded punishment at a time when he had already challenged the punishment awarded to him. It is his further case that the reporting officer failed to assess his performance in a fair and just manner and the reviewing officer left an important column blank and that the petitioner was not assessed in a proper or fair manner considering him as a member of a scheduled caste community. The claim of the petitioner is that he should have been graded good. 15. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the assessment of the work output, personal attributes and functional competency of individuals is made separately in the APAR based on which an officer would be graded on a score of 1 to 10 under each head. In 2005, the reporting officer graded him with a score of 3.9 and the reviewing officer accepted the same. In para.6 the grading of the petitioner in the respective annual confidential reports since the petitioner joined the CISF is given as follows: W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 14 _“2001 – Good 2002 – Good 2003 – Average 2004 - Average 2005 – Below Average 2006 – Good 2007 – Average 2008 – Good 2009 – Good 2010 – Good 2011 – Good 2012 – Good (01.01.12 to 31.08.12) & Average (17.09.12 to 31.12.12) 2013 – Average 2014 – Good.”_ It is pointed out that he was graded as average, in 2003, 2004, 2007, in 2012 (partly) and in 2013 whereas he was graded as below average in the year 2005. It is stated that he was awarded a petty punishment of one day extra duty for damaging a mini bus by rash driving and for remaining absent from family quarter without permission. It is stated that the grading is given to him in the background of advisory warnings, petty punishments, minor punishments etc. awarded to him during the relevant periods. The contention of the petitioner is that his grading was raised to `good' in 2014 because he had been constantly submitting complaints. 16. According to the respondents, the petitioner has not produced any of W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 15 such complaints which are alleged to have been submitted by him. It is also pointed out that as per Ext.R4(a) letter a warning was administered to the petitioner on 15.12.2015 for not checking water and oil level of the vehicle assigned and for being negligent towards upkeep and maintenance of the vehicle. It is stated that as per letter dated 16.12.2015 another warning was administered to him for not wearing helmet as per Ext.R4(b). Therefore, the remarks and grading are done based on materials. 17. On consideration of the contentions on either side, it is seen that grading is given in the Annual performance appraisal reports after evaluating the performance of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and orders in force. The remarks of reporting officer is verified by reviewing officer. The petitioner does not have a case that there is violation of any rules. He has already availed the remedy available against the remarks. When the officers under whom the petitioner works have evaluated his performance, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot have any authority to re-assess the same and sit in appeal over their evaluation. As pointed out by the learned CGC, this position is fortified by the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Anil Mishra V Union of India and Others**_ **: (2008)7SCC 732** and of this Court in _**Manoj K.P V Controller & Auditor General of India & others**_ **: 2020(2) KHC 378** . 18. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Caste community. The proforma for the W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 16 APAR contains a separate column no.4 in part III of the proforma where the reviewing officer has to indicate the following: _“If the official reported upon is a member of SC/ST please indicate specifically whether the attitude of the reporting Officer in assessing the performance of the SC/ST been fair & just.”_ 19. The reviewing authority has not written anything against this column in Ext.P2 APAR for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015. At the same time, in Ext.P1 report for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014, the very same reviewing officer has furnished his remarks in column no.4 as “fair and just”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reviewing officer by not filling up the column and without assessing and indicating the attitude of the reporting officer towards the SC/ST members, has violated the procedure. 20. Across the bar it is stated that the petitioner continues to be a Constable with the grading of average and he is facing disciplinary action on some or other reasons. The purpose behind the column 4 can only be to ensure a fair approach towards the members of SC and ST. Though it is true that the reviewing officer has failed to furnish his remarks in column 4, it is seen that the petitioner had not raised any such contention in his representations against the APAR. 21. At any rate, the failure to fill up a column in the proforma alone will not alter the other remarks made or grading arrived at by the reporting and reviewing officers and an interference with the APAR is not warranted on that ground alone. However, the authority competent shall take the matter seriously in W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 17 future and see that officers concerned are furnishing APAR after filling up all the relevant columns carefully including their remarks with respect to the attitude of the reporting officer towards the members of Scheduled Castes. With this observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_ W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 18 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19186/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**P1**|**COPY OF THE POSTING DETAILS OF THE**| |---|---| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**P2**|**COPY OF THE PROMITION SERIAL LIST DATED**| ||**20/4/2012.**| |**P2(A)**|**TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-2.**| |**P3**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/2/2012.**| |**P3(A0**|**TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-3.**| |**P4**|**COPY OF THE REPLAY DATED 21/11/2013.**| |**P4(A)**|**TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-4.**| |**P5**|**COPY OF THE PROMOIION LIST DTD 21/11/13.**| |**P6**|**COPY OF OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 4/7/14.**| |**P7**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO 19142/2012**| ||**OF HIGH COURT OF ORISSA.**| |**P8**|**COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 6/10/15.**| |**P9**|**COPY OF OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 20/11/15.**| |**P10**|**COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBER 44/2011.**| |**P11**|**COPY OF CIRCULAR NUMBER 16/2013.**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**|| |**EXT.R4(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.(3760) DATED**| ||**5.12.2013.**| |**EXT.R4(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF RTC BHILAI SO Pt.II NO.96/2012**| ||**DATED 20.04.2012.**| |**EXT.R4(c)**|**TRUE COPY OF CISF DIRECTORATE LETTER NO.541**| ||**DATED 22.12.2011.**| W.P(C).Nos.19186 & 40962 of 2016 19 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40962/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APAR RATINGS OF THE**| |---|---| ||**PETITIONER DURING THE YEAR 2014.**| |**P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APAR RATINS OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER DURING THE YEAR 2015.**| |**P3**|**COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE GROUP COMMANDANT.**| |**P3(a)**|**TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.**| |**P4**|**ORDER OF THE GROUP COMMANDANT.**| |**P5**|**COPY OF REVISION BEFORE DIG.**| |**P5(a)**|**TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5.**| |**P6**|**ORDER OF DIG REJECTING REVISION.**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**|| |**EXT.R4(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.2105 DATED**| ||**15.12.2015 ISSUED BY ASST. COMMANDANT CISF**| ||**UNIT NTPC KAYAMKULAM.**| |**EXT.R4(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.2110 DATED**| ||**16.12.2015 ISSUED BY ASST.COMMANDANT CISF**| ||**UNIT NTPC KAYAMKULAM.**| |**EXT.R4(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.626 DATED**| ||**23.09.2015, ISSUED BY CISF HQRs, NEW DELHI.**|