AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application has been filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, by the applicant who is a serving Brig and is aggrieved by his non-empanelment in the No 1 Selection Board held on 26.10.2020, despite his exemplary service profile. The applicant has, therefore, made the following prayers:
(a) Call for the relevant records based on which the Respondents have retained the assessment of the then Higher Special Corps Reviewing Officer (HSCRO) and Head of Arms (HOA) the then DG Artillery Lt Gen P R Shankar, VSM and assessment of the Senior Reviewing Officers for the period from 01.01.2015 to 30.06.20151 01.07.2015 to 30.03.2016 and 04.03.2016 to 30.06.2016 which ought to have been removed from the reckonable profile of the Applicant, rejecting his Statutory Complaint vide impugned order dated 09.04.2018 and based on which the Applicant has been overlooked for promotion to the Rank of Major General by No. 1 SB held on 26.10.2020 in terms of the order dated 15.12.2020 and thereafter, quash the same including the order of non-empanelment dated 15.12.2020.
(b) The Respondents be directed to remove the assessment of the Higher Special Corps Reviewing Officer (HSCRO) and Head of Arms (HOA) and SRO in the CRs for the period between 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015, 01.07.2015 to 03.03.2016 and 04.03.2016 to 30.06.2016 in entirety or any other inconsistent assessment if found on the record and reconsider the case of the Applicant for promotion by No. 1 by way of Special Review cases after necessary medication of his profile and if he is found to be meeting the bench mark of the last empanelled Officer with his changed profile, he may be promoted to the Rank of Major General with all consequential benefits of back wages, seniority, continuity of service etc.
(c) Issue such other order/ direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) In the interim, one vacancy of Major General in the Artillery the result to the final disposal of this OA.
Brief Facts of the Case
The brief facts of the case as per the applicant are that he was commissioned on 16.12.1989 into Artillery. During his service career he served in varied sectors and held prestigious staff and instructional appointments. The applicant is a graduate of the Defence Services Staff College and has done the Higher Command course. He was awarded Sena Medal (Gallantry) in January 2000, for an act of bravery on the face of the enemy. The applicant was empanelled by the No. 2 SB in May 2014, and assumed command of an Artillery Brigade in January 2015. The applicant earned 3 CRs in the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2016. It is the applicant's case that whilst the JO and First Special to Corps Reviewing Officer (FSCRO) had graded him 'Outstanding' and it's the applicant's belief that the ROs too would have upheld this assessment. However, it is again the applicant's case that the Higher Special to Corps Reviewing Officer (HSCRO) and Head of Arms (HoA) has deliberately downgraded the outstanding assessment due to certain personal animosity and this may then have obscured the objective assessment by the SRO as well.
On not being nominated for the National Defence College after his command tenure of the Brigade, the applicant filed a Statutory Complaint dated 26.06.2017 (Annexure A-2), wherein the applicant had impugned the three CRs covering the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2016 and had prayed that the assessment by the HSCRO/ HoA in all the three CRs be expunged and that the assessment of the SRO be then suitably moderated. However, this statutory complaint was rejected by the Competent Authority by their order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure A-1 pages 42/43) on the grounds that the reports by the various assessment officers in the impugned CRs were objective, performance based, technically valid and with no evidence of any bias of subjectivity.
The applicant was subsequently considered by No 1 SB held on 26.10.2020 and the results were declared vide letter dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure A-1 pages 38/40) wherein he was non-empanelled for promotion to the rank of Major General. Hence this OA.
Arguments by the Counsel for the Applicant
The Counsel took us through the entire service profile of the applicant and emphasised his various achievements during his career. He then explained in detail the reporting channel of CRs in respect of the applicant during his tenure as the commander of the Artillery Brigade located at Dhrangadhra (Gujarat). The Counsel then took us through the three impugned CRs covering the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2016 and emphatically stated that whilst the IC) and FSCRO had assessed the applicant as outstanding in all the 3 CRs, and that this outstanding assessment had also possibly been endorsed by the RO. The Counsel then vehemently stated that despite the outstanding assessment by these reporting officers, the HSCRO had deliberately downgraded the outstanding assessment due to certain issues of personal animosity between the applicant and the HSCRO; and this may then also have obscured the objective assessment by the SRO as well.
The Counsel then took us through the statutory complaint filed by the applicant in 2017 and its rejection by the Competent Authority with utter disregard to the grounds canvassed in the complaint. The Counsel then explained the background to the reasons for animosity and concluded that grave damage had been caused by the assessment of the HSCRO and, therefore, the assessment of the HSCRO in the three CRs be expunged; the rejection of the statutory complaint be quashed and the applicant be considered by a Special Review Board with the modified profile.
Arguments by the Counsel for the Respondents
The Counsel for the respondents briefly took us through the statutory complaint and emphasised that the complaint had been rejected since there was no evidence of any subjectivity. The Counsel then emphasised that the reasons advanced for the perceived personal animosity between the applicant and the HSCRO were frivolous and unsubstantiated and, therefore, these need to be dismissed. Referring to the prayers made by the applicant in this OA, the Counsel reiterated that the grounds canvassed in this OA were the same as those canvassed in the statutory complaint which had already been rejected; therefore, OA is not maintainable and needs to be rejected. The Counsel then stated that the records pertaining to the case would be submitted to the Tribunal immediately on termination of the hearing.
Consideration of the Case
We have examined the records submitted by the Respondents and it is seen that, contrary to the apprehensions of the applicant, the HSCRO has rated the applicant as 'Outstanding' in all the three impugned CRs covering the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015; 01.07.2015 to 03.03.2016 and 04.03.2016 to 30.06.2016. As far as the assessment by the SRO is concerned, the applicant has been rated 'Outstanding' in the CR covering the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015. In the next two CRs, the applicant has been rated '8' by the SRO. Thus, none of the impugned CRs merit any further interference. Accordingly, the Statutory Complaint too had been rejected.
We, therefore, find no merit in the OA and it is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Court on this 1st day of April, 2022.