Holding that the State and Centre rejected a plea of a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) against certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) mechanically without properly assigning reasons for it, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the authorities to re-examine the cop’s representation and pass a well-reasoned order.
According to the petitioner, N Baskaran, an IPS official, adverse remarks were made in his ACR (for period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006) prepared by his immediate superior, the Commissioner of Police (CoP). During the period under review, he was serving as DCP in Tirunelveli and presently he is DCP, Law and Order, Chennai.
Baskaran’s representation seeking expunction of adverse remarks was summarily rejected by both the State and Union governments.
The case of the petitioner is that he worked efficiently and won accolades, conducted raids and detected pirated and pornographic CDs. He booked cases under the Lottery Regulation Act, NDPS Act and the Prohibition Act.
But, the assessing officer (CoP) did not take into account his achievements. Hence, he made a representation seeking expunction of adverse remarks.
However, the authorities (State and Centre) held that the petitioner’s action during the period under review was ineffective.
“Only on two occasions, the petitioner’s ability to handle unforeseen situation was seen,” they held.
In the Annual Confidential Report, the Police Commissioner said that he was forced to step in personally to rid the city (Tirunelveli) of pirated and pornographic CDs, ganja and illicit sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), lotteries.