Central Administrative Tribunal

1 (OA No.499 of 2015) ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR … OA No.499 of 2015 … Col Navneet Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others …Respondent(s) … For the petitioner : Petitioner in person. For the Respondent(s) : Maj Vaibhav Kumar, MS Branch … CORAM:JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER LT GEN SANJIV CHACHRA(RETD), ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER … ORDER .2016 … By means of the present O.A., the applicant has impugned any subjectivity by way of low assessment by giving him 07 points or below in PQs/ DPVs/ QsAP portion of the CRs or any other adverse remarks recorded therein by the Initiating Officer (IO), Reviewing Officer(RO) or the Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO), during the relevant period and has prayed for setting aside the same. The applicant has further prayed for restoration of seniority with respect to his batch mates, w.e.f. 08.06.1985 as is stated to have been done in other cases. Lastly, it is prayed that fresh consideration for nomination to the Courses like HC/ HDMC/ other equivalent Course be ordered to be made as consequential relief to be provided in Quantified Model of Promotion System. As a matter of fact and what transpires from the facts and circumstances of the present case, the main grievance of the petitioner is against non- empanelment/promotion to the rank of Brigadier by Selection Board No.2. 2. The pleaded case of the applicant is that he was commissioned into the 19 Madras Regiment (Infantry) on 08.06.1985 and served the Army for 2 (OA No.499 of 2015) approximately 30 years during which period he was posted in North-East, Sri Lanka & the State of Jammu & Kashmir and spent eight tenures (about 14 years) in Counter Insurgency/ Terrorist Operations (CI/ CT) areas. The applicant further claims that with regard to „OP‟ PAWAN, he was awarded Chief of Army Staff Commendation Card. It is further claimed that he was approved for the rank of Colonel with 86th Batch as First Review case and was nominated to command Rashtriya Rifles (RR) Battalion w.e.f. February 2005 to 21.08.2007, which was deployed in North Kashmir. Despite the fact that there was inhospitable operational environment, difficult terrain and harsh weather conditions, his Unit launched 44 successful operations. During the period he was in command of the Rashtriya Rifles Battalion, ACRs for the following four spells of his service were recorded by various IOs/ ROs/ SROs:- (a) CR from 02.02.2005 to 31.08.2005; (b) ICR from 01.09.2005 to 28.03.2006; (c) CR from 29.03.2006 to 31.08.2006; and (d) CR from 21.08.2006 to 21.08.2007. 3. The grievance of the applicant is that despite showing best performance/ achievements in the Operational Areas, he was not empanelled for promotion to the rank of Brigadier by Selection Board No.2 for which the result was declared on 21.08.2012. The non-statutory complaint made by him in this regard was not accepted by the MS Branch and rejected as time-barred on 31.07.2013 as per Annexure A-2. Thereafter, he submitted a statutory complaint on 19.08.2013 and the Central Government ordered grant of redress by way of expunction of assessment of SRO at Para 26(a) – ‘Recommendation for Promotion’ of CRs 02.02.2005 to 31.08.2005 and 29.03.2006 to 31.08.2006 for being inconsistent and pursuant thereto necessary expunctions were carried out in the CRD of the petitioner (Annexure A-3). 4. The applicant feels further aggrieved that the redressal accorded was selective and minor in nature as compared to the importance of Para 26(a) of IAFI-1123B1 (Revised N) and is also not in consonance with the laid down policy as well as the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Armed Forces Tribunal in the decisions given on the subject. Thereby, he 3 (OA No.499 of 2015) has also been denied fresh consideration for nomination into Higher Command/ HDMC/ other equivalent courses, which are considered for promotion to the next rank under the new Quantified System of Promotion policy, along with the present batch for which selection is based on the command reports. Hence the present O.A. 5. On notice, the respondents have filed a detailed reply contesting the O.A. 6. The general submissions made by the respondents are that the Army has a pyramidical rank structure whereby the vacancies in higher ranks are limited and only those officers whose record of service, within a particular batch, is better, are selected to fill up the available vacancies in the higher ranks. As per the promotion policy, which was applicable till 15.12.2004, promotions in the Army till the rank of Major were by Time Scale Promotions from Major to Lieutenant Colonel and above were decided through Section Boards. After implementation of Ajay Vikram Singh Committee-1 (AVSC-1) recommendations, promotions till Lieutenant Colonel are by Time Scale. All officers of a particular batch are considered together with same cut-off Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and on the basis of the inputs, individual profile of the officer, and the comparative merit in the Batch, they are approved/ not approved. Seniority, in itself, has no consideration before the Selection Board for approval or dis-approval. In case any officer gets any relief through statutory or non-statutory complaint(s) etc. with regard to any Confidential Report (CR) after the Section Board has been held, he is entitled to a special corresponding consideration by the Selection Board with his changed profile. Thus, in case he is approved by such special consideration, his original seniority remains protected. As per the policy, each officer is entitled to only three considerations for promotion to the selection ranks i.e. Fresh Consideration, First Review and the Final Review. In case an officer is not approved as a Fresh Consideration case, but approved as a First Review case or the Final Review case, he loses seniority accordingly vis-a-vis his original batch-mates. After three considerations, if an officer is not approved, he is deemed to be finally superseded. 4 (OA No.499 of 2015) 7. It is further submitted by the respondents that the assessment of officers in ACRs, earlier regulated by SAO 3/S/89, has been replaced by Army Order 45/2001/MS and other relevant policies. The gradings are given in numerical form i.e. from ‘1’ to ‘9’ and in the form of pen picture also. The entire assessment of an officer in any ACR consists of assessment at three different levels; firstly by the Reporting Officer i.e. Initiating Officer (IO), secondly by the Reviewing Officer (RO) and finally the Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO) and the assessments made at these levels are independent of each other. While considering an officer for promotion to a selection rank, the Selection Board takes into consideration a number of factors such as War/ Operational Reports, Course Reports, Annual Confidential Reports, performance in command, and staff appointments, honours and awards, disciplinary background etc. and not just the ACRs or only few ACRs. Empanelment/ non-empanelment is based upon the overall profile of an officer and comparative merit within the Batch as evaluated by the Section Board. It is up to the Selection Board to assess the suitability of a candidate for promotion and such assessment is recommendatory in nature and not a binding until or unless approved by the Competent Authority or the Central Government, as the case may be. 8. With regard to consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher ranks, the respondents have submitted that he had earned 24 Confidential Reports in the reckonable profile which were ‘Above Average’ to ‘Outstanding’ except eight CRs wherein he was given assessment at ‘7’ by the IO/ RO/ SRO. He was considered by No.3 Selection Board for promotion to the rank of Colonel as per the following details:- Sl No. Type of Consideration Year Result (a) Fresh 1985 Sep 2003 Not empanelled (b) First Review 1985 Feb 2004 Not empanelled (c) Special Review 1985(Fresh) June 2004 Not empanelled (d) Special Review(First) Oct 2004 Empanelled. (with 1986 batch) 5 (OA No.499 of 2015) 9. Insofar as the non-statutory complaint of the applicant is concerned, it is submitted by the respondents that it was disposed of by the Chief of the Army Staff vide order dated 19.06.2004 wherein partial redressal was granted to him by way of expunction of three assessments of the IO and two assessments of the RO in the CR for the period 01/88 – 12/88 and one assessment of IO and Review Officer in CR for the period 01/95 to 05/95. Resultantly, he was considered by No.3 Selection Board Special Review (Fresh) in June 2004 but was not empanelled. Subsequently, he was empanelled to the rank of Colonel in his Special Review (First) consideration held in October 2004 and thus reckoned Batch year of seniority as 1986. 10. The next consideration of the applicant was by No.2 Selection Board as 1986 Batch (Infantry) for promotion to the rank of Brigadier as per the following details:- Sl No. Type of Consideration Year Result (a) Fresh 1986 Mar 2012 Not empanelled (b) First Review 1986 Oct 2012 Not empanelled (c) Final Review 1986 Sep 2003 Not empanelled (d) Special Review(Fresh) Jun 2015 Not Empanelled. (with 1986 batch) The applicant submitted a non- Statutory Complaint, dated 15.07.2013, against non-empanelment by No.2 Section Board (Fresh) held in October 2012 which was returned to him as time-barred.

Load more