Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration Of Brigadier’s Case For Promotion To Rank Of Major General, Directs Expunction Of Figurative Ratings Of ACR
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a Brigadier aggrieved by his non- empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
While directing the expunction of figurative ratings made in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR), the Supreme Court has directed the reconsideration of a case of a Brigadier’s promotion to the rank of Major General.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a Brigadier aggrieved by his non- empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General.
The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered, “Now, reconsideration of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Major General shall be made in terms of the operative part of the first impugned order by taking into consideration the additional relief granted as above. If the appellant has already superannuated, his case for the notional promotion and grant of monetary benefits shall be considered within three months from today.”
Advocate S S Pandey represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
After completing successful training at the Indian Military Academy, the appellant was commissioned as a Lieutenant in 1991 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, now known as the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME). Eventually, he reached the rank of Brigadier. When the appellant was posted as a Commandant in the Northern Command, he earned two Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the periods from December 2017 to June 2018 (12/17 to 06/18) and from July 2018 to June 2019 (07/18 to 06/19).
According to the appellant's case, the fourth respondent gave lukewarm reports due to his bias against the appellant. The appellant submitted statutory complaints pointing out that he was not nominated for the NDC/APPA course, but the same were rejected. In June/July 2021, the appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Major General, but was not empaneled.
The Armed Forces Tribunal, while considering the Appellant’s Original Application, by the first impugned order, directed expunction of figurative ratings by the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) in Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings of ACR. The Tribunal also directed reconsideration of the appellant’s promotion to the rank of Major General. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking leave to file an appeal against the first impugned order. By the second impugned order, the application for the grant of leave for filing an appeal was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Tribunal had found fault with the approach of the IO in awarding relatively low gradings in that part of the ACR which was not visible to the ratee (appellant). On a perusal of the ACRs, the Tribunal had found that the relatively lower ratings in QsAP by the IO and relatively lower ratings in Box grading by the IO endorsed by the RO had not been adequately justified by the respondents. The IO, had maintained the same figurative assessment in the portion of ACR to be shown to the ratee (appellant). However, it was only in the part of the ACR which was not to be seen by the ratee (appellant), the IO had awarded relatively low gradings.
The Bench said, “In fact, there is a finding of fact recorded in paragraph 35 of the first impugned order, which we have quoted above. The intent of the fourth respondent is also noted. The finding is that there was an intent to affect lower figurative ratings to the appellant, which is masked from the knowledge of the appellant”. The Bench was also of the view that the first ACR of the period from 12/17 to 06/18 couldn’t be treated differently from the second ACR of the period from 07/18 to 06/19.
“Therefore, we direct that the expunction of figurative ratings by IO and RO in QsAPs and Box grading of the ACR for the period 12/17 to 06/18 shall be made”, it ordered.
On the issue of reconsideration of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Major General, the Bench held that the same shall be made in terms of the operative part of the first impugned order by taking into consideration the additional relief granted. Allowing the appeal, the Bench concluded, “If the appellant has already superannuated, his case for the notional promotion and grant of monetary benefits shall be considered within three months from today.”
Cause Title: Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 685)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate S S Pandey, AOR Abhishek Ritabh Shukla, Advocates Chahat Raghav, Roshan
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Anmol Chandan, Karthik Sunder, Antriksh Singh, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Ishaan Sharma
