The court has said the officer, S S Phogat, should be reconsidered for promotion on the basis of merit, regardless of his mistake -- that he didn't notice and report the theft of a television in his office!

Phogat, who joined the navy as a sailor in September 1974, moved HC seeking promotion to the post of Master Chief Petty Officer II. During his tenure as Chief Petty Officer in '93, he incurred disqualification since he did not detect, and therefore did not report, the theft of a television set from his office. Under the navy rules, a record of continuous four years of Very Good Conduct (VGC) is required for being eligible for further promotions. Having incurred warrant punishment on March 12, 1993, he became ineligible for any promotion till March 1997.

However, even after theineligibility period expired, he was not considered for upward revision. When he approached the court, a special promotion board was appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff, which also denied him promotion.According to the respondent authorities, Phogat's break in VGC was not the only obstacle in promotion. The special promotion board had observed that while Phogat's ``professional knowledge and performance was good,'' his ``integrity, moral fibre and ability to shoulder high responsibilities was doubtful.'' The incident of theft had prevented authorities from showing confidence in the officer, the board claimed.

According to the petitioner's advocate Shyam Mehta, an old service lapse, the ground for denial of promotion, cannot again be held against Phogat, especially since he is otherwise eligible. The certificates of merit received by him from the Rear Admiral, Vice-Admiral and Commanding Officer speak for themseves. One of the citations stated: ``His confidence and calibre made him the much sought-afterofficer in the Western Fleet.'' It is also found that the promotion board of 1995 had placed him number one on the merit list, but for the ineligibility factor which spoilt his prospects.

Moreover, if the earlier service lapse is to bug the petitioner in all future promotions, there was no point in earning the VGC record in the remaining four years of his service, the counsel argued.