Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohit Rexwal, Mr. Ashish, Advs v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE ORS

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11799/2016 BADAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohit Rexwal, Mr. Ashish, Advs. Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Devender Singh, ITBP CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 11.08.2025 1. The petitioner by virtue of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court with the following prayers: “(1) That this Hon'ble Court may further direct Respondent No. 1 to review the enquiries/memos/orders dated 13.05.15, 05.10.2015, 18.04.2015, 20.04.2015,15.07.2015,18.10.2016, 22.10.2016, APAR for the period of 01.01.2015 to 30.05.2015 and others issued by Respondent no. 3 against the petitioner and get the same adjudicated by an independent/neutral officer/authority who is not under any influence/command of Respondent no.3 directly or indirectly or from an officer superior to the respondent no.3 of some other battalion; This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 (2) Direct Respondent No.3 to stop issuing incessant memos/show cause notices/report against the Petitioner.” 2. Vide order dated 07.07.2023, as most of the grievances of the petitioner stand redressed in view of orders dated 20.02.2019 and 04.02.2020 as also on account of the dismissal of respondent no.3’s/ Reviewing Officer (Reviewing Officer), the Court by order dated 07.07.2023 directed that the scope of the present writ petition be restricted only to the recovery sought to be made against the petitioner towards part of the amount spent on the medical treatment as well as upgradation of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of the petitioner which were reviewed by the respondent no.3 as the Reviewing Officer for the period of 01.01.2015 to 30.05.2015. 3. Adverting first to the APARs, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the APARs dated 16.09.2025, which are disclosed to the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the said APARs disclose that the Reporting Officer has given the petitioner certain gradings, and the reason given for the said gradings was that the petitioner disobeys his seniors and also misbehaves with the juniors. The assessment of the personal attributes and the gradings given by the Reporting Officer are reproduced to read as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 XXX XXX 5. It is observed that the Reviewing Officer, has endorsed the view of the Reporting Officer. However, the Accepting Authority has deferred This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 with the gradings given by the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer, citing that the reason for the grades given could have been because of the allegations made by the petitioner against the Reviewing Officer. 6. When this Court put a question to the learned CGSC as to whether the Reviewing Officer was the direct superior of the Reporting Officer or not, the learned CGSC, on instructions, states that it is a fact that the Reviewing Officer was the immediate superior of the Reporting Officer. He, also, upon instructions states that the said Reviewing Officer has been dismissed from service on account of certain other inquiries which have been initiated against the Reviewing Officer. 7. On a pointed question as to whether complaints had been made by the petitioner against the Reviewing Officer, the learned CGSC, on instructions, affirms that there were indeed complaints given by the petitioner against the Reviewing Officer. 8. As per the statement made by the learned CGSC, it is admitted that Reviewing Officer was the immediate superior of the Reporting Officer, and it is also evident that the complaints have been made by the petitioner against the Reviewing Officer. 9. In light of the aforesaid, it appears that the APARs calls for reconsideration, as it is apparent from the record that the integrity of the petitioner was stated to be beyond doubt. It is also pertinent to note that the Accepting Authority states that he does not completely concur with the opinion of the Reporting Officer/ Reviewing Officer for giving poor grades, as there were complaints filed by the petitioner against the Reviewing Officer. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and the settled law, we cannot permit the petitioner to be subjected to the glaring This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 vindictiveness inflicted upon him in the form of adverse APARs by the Reviewing Officer, which impacts the future of the petitioner and prospective benefits. 10. Furthermore, in the case titled Manudev Dahiya v. Union of India & Ors.1, the learned Single Judge has held that when facts and circumstances indicate that vindictiveness is being taken out in the form of adverse APARs, the same is liable to be remanded back for fresh consideration. 11. In this scenario, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the Reporting Officer to once again assess the performance of the petitioner for the relevant period, i.e., 01.01.2015 to 30.05.2015, based on the available records. 12. Coming to the second aspect regarding the recovery of the amounts spent by the petitioner for medical reimbursement for the relevant period. As far as medical bills are concerned, an additional affidavit dated 20.10.2023 has been filed by the Union of India wherein it has been stated as under: “4. That as far as the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the recovery sought to be made against the Petitioner towards part of the amount spent on his medical treatment it is humbly submitted that during his posting at S.S. Battalion, the Petitioner was sanctioned medical advance amount of Rs.4,72,500/- from Central Welfare Fund for self-treatment. The Petitioner has produced medical reimbursement claims to S.S. Battalion after treatment, which was forwarded to Director (Medical), Dte. Genl. for issuing Ex-Post Facto sanction to pass the claim. 5. That the Director (Medical), Dte. Genl. vide their Officer Memorandum No.609 dated 01.04.2016 intimated to S.S. Battalion that as per MoH&FW Office Memo 1 MANU/DE/4556/2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 No.12034/2014/MISC/III dated 22.06.2014, according to the approved Ceiling Rates for Reimbursement of Cardiac Pacemaker, AICD, Combo-Device, Rotablator and Aortic Stent Graft to beneficiaries of ~ CS(MA) Rules, the ceiling rate for the Implantable Cardioverter Defribrillator (Single Chamber) (ICD/AICD-Single Chamber) has been fixed at Rs.1,75,786/- .Therefore, the claim of SO’s be restricted to Rs. 1,75,786/- under CS(MA) Rule (Non-NABH) Delhi Procedure/package AICD rate Rs.28,750/- + Pacemaker with Accessories Implantable Cardioverter Defribrillator (Single Chamber) (ICD/AICD - Single Chamber) and any bill other than the package rate will not be admissible. Copy of the Office Memorandum No.609 dated 01.04.2016 with English Translation is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R/2. 6. That subsequently the Director (Medical), Dte. Genl. has issued Ex-post Facto sanction order of Rs.2,04,536/- for said medical reimbursement vide their Officer Order No.1257 dated 28.07.2016 for reimbursement of expenditure occurred on self-treatment w.e.f. 28.11.2013 to 30.11.2013 due to his disease CAD with old Anterior Wall Myocardial Infraction with double Vessel Disease/ AICD Implantation in emergency situation at Mex Hospital Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Copy of the Officer Order No.1257 dated 28.07.2016 with English Translation is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R/3.” 13. In view of the reasons given by the Union of India in the affidavit, and also as the amounts spent for medical purposes are over and above the permissible limit as per the germane regulations i.e., Office Memo no. 12034/20I4/MISC/III dated 22.06.2014, the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner are clearly beyond the ceiling prescribed. Further, office order No.1257 dated 28.07.2016 states that the cumulative payment made by the respondents towards the medical expenses of the petitioner is beyond the prescribed limit. Therefore, the additional amount of (Rs. 2,67,964/-) is liable to be reimbursed to the respondents. In view of the above discussions, we are not in a position to accede to the prayer moved This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:16:21 by the petitioner. 14. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J AUGUST 11, 2025/Ab