Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary, was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1991 and rose to the rank of Brigadier. He had an exemplary record with multiple awards, including two Vishisht Seva Medals. In 2017, he was posted as Commandant of 3 Advance Base Workshop under the Northern Command, where his reporting officer (fourth respondent) gave him lukewarm Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the periods December 2017 to June 2018 and July 2018 to June 2019. The appellant alleged bias and mala fides, leading to his non-empanelment for promotion to Major General in 2021. He filed statutory complaints and a non-statutory complaint, all rejected. He then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which partially allowed his application by expunging the figurative ratings (QsAPs and Box gradings) in the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19) and directing reconsideration of his promotion. However, the Tribunal did not interfere with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18). The appellant sought leave to appeal, which was denied. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that both ACRs were similarly biased and should be expunged. The Union of India defended the Tribunal's order, contending that the first ACR was not interfered with for valid reasons. The Supreme Court examined the ACR system under Army Order 02/2016/MS, noting that numerical ratings from 1 to 9 are used, with 9 being 'outstanding'. The Tribunal had found that in the second ACR, the IO awarded lower ratings in the undisclosed portion (QsAPs and Box grading) while maintaining similar gradings in the disclosed part, indicating a deliberate intent to harm the appellant's prospects. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of bias in the second ACR and affirmed the expunction of those ratings. However, regarding the first ACR, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision not to expunge it, as the Tribunal had provided cogent reasons. The Court also upheld the direction for reconsideration of the appellant's promotion within three months without loss of seniority. The appeal was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Annual Confidential Report (ACR) - Bias and Mala Fides - Army Order 02/2016/MS - The Tribunal found that the Initiating Officer (IO) intentionally awarded lower figurative ratings in the undisclosed portion of the ACR for 07/18 to 06/19, indicating bias. The Supreme Court upheld the expunction of QsAPs and Box gradings for that period but declined to interfere with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18) as the Tribunal had provided cogent reasons for not expunging it. (Paras 13-15) B) Service Law - Promotion - Reconsideration - Army Order 02/2016/MS - The Tribunal directed reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to Major General within three months without loss of seniority. The Supreme Court affirmed this direction, noting that the appellant's case must be considered afresh after expunction of the biased ACR. (Paras 5, 15) C) Service Law - ACR - Confidentiality - Army Order 02/2016/MS - The Court noted that Part III of the ACR (QsAPs and Box grading) is not to be shown to the officer, but the IO's lower ratings in that part, masked from the appellant, indicated an intent to affect the appellant's prospects. (Paras 11, 35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not expunging the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18) despite finding bias in the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19), and whether the appellant's promotion to Major General should be reconsidered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the Tribunal's order expunging the QsAPs and Box gradings in the ACR for 07/18 to 06/19 and directing reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to Major General within three months without loss of seniority. The Court declined to interfere with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18). No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Annual Confidential Report (ACR) assessment
- biased reporting
- expunction of ratings
- promotion reconsideration
- mala fides
- Army Order 02/2016/MS
