Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 685
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4655 OF 2023
Brig Sandeep Chaudhary … Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. To appreciate the controversy involved, a few key
factual details must be considered. After completing
successful training at the Indian Military Academy, the
th
appellant was commissioned as a Lieutenant on 14
December 1991 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical
Engineers. It is now known as the Corps of Electronics
and Mechanical Engineers (EME). Though the appellant
served in the EME, he also served as operations staff in
various locations, including high-altitude areas and
counter insurgency (operations). He was promoted from
Signature Not Verified
time to time. Eventually, he reached the rank of Brigadier.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.14
18:40:19 IST
Reason:
He had undertaken several courses and secured
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 1 of 12
instructional gradings in all the graded courses. He was
selected for the United Nations Mission. The appellant
claims to be a decorated soldier who has been awarded
twelve times and has been awarded the Vishisht Seva
Medal (VSM) twice and was commanding the only R&D
establishment of the Indian Army.
th
2. On 8 December 2017, the appellant was posted as
a Commandant, 3 Advance Base Workshop in the
Northern Command. The appellant earned two Annual
Confidential Reports (for short, ‘ACRs’) during the period
he worked in the Northern Command. He earned ACRs
from the fourth respondent 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.
3. Prior to the aforesaid two ACRs written by the fourth
respondent, the appellant was on the top of the batch
th
based on his performance, profile, and awards. On 5
November 2019, the appellant submitted a first statutory
complaint pointing out that he was not nominated for the
NDC/APPA course. The complaint was rejected. Even the
second statutory complaint filed by the appellant based on
a few additional facts on the conduct of the fourth
respondent, was rejected. In June/July 2021, the
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 2 of 12
appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of
Major General, but was not empanelled. Therefore, he
th
submitted a non-statutory complaint on 5 August 2021,
th
which was rejected on 19 January 2022.
4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant
filed an Original Application No. 125/2022 before the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’). In the original application, the
following prayers were made before the Tribunal:
“ a) Call for complete ACRs of the
applicant and set aside the assessment
of IO and RO in the impugned ACR for
the period 12/17-06/18 and 7/18-
06/19.
b) Call for the records and set aside the
result of No.1 Selection Board held for
consideration of the applicant for the
rank of Maj Gen. ”
th
5. The Tribunal, by the first impugned order dated 26
April 2023, granted partial relief. The Tribunal directed
expunction of figurative ratings by Initiating Officer (IO)
and Reviewing Officer (RO) in Qualities to Assess Potential
(QsAPs) and Box gradings of ACR for the period from
07/18 to 06/19. The Tribunal also directed
reconsideration of the appellant’s promotion to the rank of
Major General within three months, without any loss to
seniority.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 3 of 12
6. The appellant filed a Misc. App. No. 2094/2023 in the
aforesaid O.A. No. 125/2022, seeking leave to file an
appeal against the first impugned order before this Court.
th
By the second impugned order dated 25 May 2023, the
application for the grant of leave for filing an appeal was
rejected.
SUBMISSIONS
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
taken us through the documents on record. The learned
counsel submitted that all throughout, the appellant’s
performance was beyond excellent, which is reflected from
the medals conferred on him. He pointed out that the
appellant had been awarded twelve times, including two
VSMs.
8. The learned counsel pointed out that there is
evidence adduced on record, including the statements of
the officers about the conduct of the fourth respondent
towards the appellant. The learned counsel submitted
that there was no reason to take such a view. His
submission is that the mala fides of the fourth respondent
towards the appellant must be considered.
9. Inviting our attention to the first impugned order, the
learned counsel pointed out that the second ACR for the
period 07/18 to 06/19 has been set aside partially, but the
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 4 of 12
earlier ACR of the period 12/17 to 06/18 has not been
interfered with, though the basis of both ACRs is the same.
He invited our attention to the finding recorded in the first
impugned order. In paragraph 35, he pointed out that
there is a finding that in the portion of the ACR that is not
to be disclosed to the appellant, the entries therein
distinctively showed the intent of the fourth respondent to
affect the lower figurative ratings intentionally, which is
masked from the knowledge of the appellant. His
submission is that there was no reason to treat the two
ACRs separately. He pointed out the role played by the
fourth respondent, who nursed a grudge against the
appellant. He submitted that the fourth respondent has
intelligently brought down merit in the first ACR. He
submitted that the fourth respondent had a biased and
premeditated intent against the appellant. He pointed out
that the appellant was graded ‘outstanding’ by the same
IO in the first ACR. Because there was a large flair of 8s
in the first ACR, the competitive rating of the appellant was
brought down despite an overall Box grading of 9. Thus,
presumably, grading 8 with the same assessment in the
second ACR is beyond the perception of any prudent man.
He also pointed out that ACRs for both periods were
written beyond the permitted time.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 5 of 12
th
10. As noted in the order dated 26 September 2024, the
learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) has produced
three sets of one file and two sets of ACRs, which were
returned to the learned ASG after perusal. The learned
ASG submitted that the Tribunal has provided cogent
reasons for not interfering with the first ACR. In the
second ACR, as it was found that the assessment was
biased and premeditated, the Tribunal expunged it. The
learned ASG pointed out that the assessment of the
officers through ACRs is being regulated by Army Order
bearing AO No.02/2016/MS. It provides for giving
numeric gradings from one to nine. It also provides a pen
picture of the officer by three different officers. The
assessment is made by three officers: (i) Initiating Officer
(IO); (ii) Reviewing Officer (RO); and (iii) Senior Reviewing
Officer (SRO). She also pointed out how assessments are
made using numeric values, ranging from nine to one. She
pointed out that the statutory and non-statutory
complaints made by the appellant were properly
considered and disposed of. She would, therefore, submit
that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal as regards the first ACR. She
relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt
1
v. Union of India & Ors .
1
(2008) 8 SCC 725
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 6 of 12
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
11. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Part I of the ACR in accordance with AO
No.02/2016/MS consists of personal data, service record
and authentication of data. Part II consists of personal
and demonstrated performance, which consists of
personal qualities and demonstrated performance
variables. The personal qualities and demonstrated
performance qualities include administrative acumen,
motivation, development of subordinates, emotional
stability, understanding viewpoints, foresight and
understanding, loyalty and respect, judicious delegation,
boldness, physical fitness and fluency in expression. The
assessment is to be made by the IO and RO. The rating is
given on a scale of nine to one. Then, there are pen pictures
by the IO, RO and SRO. The pen pictures by RO and the
SRO are not to be shown to the officer. Part III consists of
the potential for promotion, which is to be shown to the
officer reported upon. The Qualities to Assess Potential
are termed as QsAP. There are five QsAPs. They are
professional competence, vision and conceptual ability,
selflessness and setting of personal example, integrity and
moral courage and tolerance for ambiguity. The
assessment is to be made by the IO, RO and SRO. The last
portion of Part III is Box grading given by the IO, RO and
SRO. This part is not to be shown to the officer.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 7 of 12
12. As stated earlier, numerical values from 9 to 1 are
used for assessment. The numerical value of 9 is stated
as ‘outstanding’, and the numerical value of 7 or 8 is
treated as ‘above average’.
13. Now, we turn to the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
From paragraph 33 onwards, scrutiny of ACRs was made
by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of the first impugned
order deal with the ACR of the appellant from 07/18 to
06/19. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of the first impugned order
read thus:
“34. We have further examined the
subsequent ACR of the applicant
covering the period from 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019, wherein the IO and the
SRO remain the same whereas there
has been a change of RO with effect
from 01.01.2019. Compared to the
previous report by the same IO, this
report under examination almost has a
similar pattern while grading the ratee
in individual boxes in PQs (Personal
Qualities) & DPVs (Demonstrated
Performance Variables) which is shown
to the ratee. The assessment of QsAP
(Qualities to Assess Potential) is
indicative of the potential of the ratee
for his suitability in higher ranks in
future, if promoted. The relatively
lower ratings in QsAP by IO as well as
the box grading which has been further
endorsed by the RO has not been
adequately justified by Respondents
except for the reason of inaccurate
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 8 of 12
initiation of Strength Return (IAFF
3008) of the officers of No 3 ABW and
non-communication of adverse
remarks in the ACR to a ratee officer
under the applicant.
35. Curiously, it is important to note
that the Respondent No.4 as IO has
maintained some figurative
assessment in the portion of the ACR
which is to be shown to the ratee, i.e.,
applicant and signed as seen. Whereas
it is only in the part of the ACR which
is not to be seen by the ratee, the IO
has awarded relatively low gradings.
Confidential reports are meant to be
the appraisal of performance of the
ratees. By maintaining similar
figurative gradings on the disclosed
part of the ACR, the reporting
officers have intended to indicate
the ratee that there is no downward
trend in his performance during the
period of report whereas in the
portion of the ACR that is not
disclosed to the applicant the report
has distinctively indicated the
intent to affect lower figurative
ratings intentionally masked from
the knowledge of the applicant.
36. We further note that the SRO who
remains common for both the reports
has endorsed the report of IO & RO as
justified and yet he has maintained
same box gradings in both his reports
under analysis. Therefore, the QsAPs
and the Box gradings of the CR
07/2018 to 06/2019 by RO warrant
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 9 of 12
interference and are required to be
expunged. ”
14. We had perused the ACRs of the appellant. The
reasons recorded while dealing with the ACR of 07/18 to
06/19 can be summarised as under:
i. The assessment of QsAP is indicative of the
potential of the ratee (appellant) for his
suitability in higher ranks in future, if
promoted;
ii. Relatively lower ratings in QsAP by the IO and
relatively lower ratings in Box grading by the IO
endorsed by the RO have not been adequately
justified by the respondents;
iii. The fourth respondent, in his capacity as IO,
has maintained the same figurative assessment
in the portion of ACR to be shown to the ratee
(appellant). However, it is only in the part of the
ACR which is not to be seen by the ratee
(appellant), the IO has awarded relatively low
gradings;
iv. SRO was the same for both the ratings who has
endorsed the report of the IO and the RO as
justified, but had maintained the same Box
gradings; and
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 10 of 12
v. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered expunction of
figurative ratings by the IO and the RO in QsAPs
and Box gradings in the second ACR (07/2018
to 06/2019).
15. The challenge before the Tribunal was to both the
ACRs. We may note here that IO and SRO for both the
ACRs are the same. IO is the fourth respondent. However,
RO for the two ACRs was different. The Tribunal has found
fault with the approach of the IO in awarding relatively low
gradings in that part of the ACR which is not visible to the
ratee (appellant). 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. After having perused
the ACRs, we are of the view that the same reasoning is
applicable to the ACR of the period from 12/17 to 06/18.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal has considered the case of the
first ACR only in the context of the performance
th
counselling letter dated 9 February 2018. We may note
here that the respondents have not challenged the finding
recorded in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the first impugned
order. We are, therefore, of the view that the first ACR
cannot be treated differently from the second ACR.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 11 of 12
16. 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. Accordingly,
th
the first impugned order dated 26 April 2023 is modified
by granting the aforesaid additional relief while
maintaining the relief already granted. 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.
17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as
to costs.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
…………………………….J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
May 14, 2025.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 12 of 12
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4655 OF 2023
Brig Sandeep Chaudhary … Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. To appreciate the controversy involved, a few key
factual details must be considered. After completing
successful training at the Indian Military Academy, the
th
appellant was commissioned as a Lieutenant on 14
December 1991 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical
Engineers. It is now known as the Corps of Electronics
and Mechanical Engineers (EME). Though the appellant
served in the EME, he also served as operations staff in
various locations, including high-altitude areas and
counter insurgency (operations). He was promoted from
Signature Not Verified
time to time. Eventually, he reached the rank of Brigadier.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.14
18:40:19 IST
Reason:
He had undertaken several courses and secured
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 1 of 12
instructional gradings in all the graded courses. He was
selected for the United Nations Mission. The appellant
claims to be a decorated soldier who has been awarded
twelve times and has been awarded the Vishisht Seva
Medal (VSM) twice and was commanding the only R&D
establishment of the Indian Army.
th
2. On 8 December 2017, the appellant was posted as
a Commandant, 3 Advance Base Workshop in the
Northern Command. The appellant earned two Annual
Confidential Reports (for short, ‘ACRs’) during the period
he worked in the Northern Command. He earned ACRs
from the fourth respondent 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.
3. Prior to the aforesaid two ACRs written by the fourth
respondent, the appellant was on the top of the batch
th
based on his performance, profile, and awards. On 5
November 2019, the appellant submitted a first statutory
complaint pointing out that he was not nominated for the
NDC/APPA course. The complaint was rejected. Even the
second statutory complaint filed by the appellant based on
a few additional facts on the conduct of the fourth
respondent, was rejected. In June/July 2021, the
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 2 of 12
appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of
Major General, but was not empanelled. Therefore, he
th
submitted a non-statutory complaint on 5 August 2021,
th
which was rejected on 19 January 2022.
4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant
filed an Original Application No. 125/2022 before the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’). In the original application, the
following prayers were made before the Tribunal:
“ a) Call for complete ACRs of the
applicant and set aside the assessment
of IO and RO in the impugned ACR for
the period 12/17-06/18 and 7/18-
06/19.
b) Call for the records and set aside the
result of No.1 Selection Board held for
consideration of the applicant for the
rank of Maj Gen. ”
th
5. The Tribunal, by the first impugned order dated 26
April 2023, granted partial relief. The Tribunal directed
expunction of figurative ratings by Initiating Officer (IO)
and Reviewing Officer (RO) in Qualities to Assess Potential
(QsAPs) and Box gradings of ACR for the period from
07/18 to 06/19. The Tribunal also directed
reconsideration of the appellant’s promotion to the rank of
Major General within three months, without any loss to
seniority.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 3 of 12
6. The appellant filed a Misc. App. No. 2094/2023 in the
aforesaid O.A. No. 125/2022, seeking leave to file an
appeal against the first impugned order before this Court.
th
By the second impugned order dated 25 May 2023, the
application for the grant of leave for filing an appeal was
rejected.
SUBMISSIONS
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
taken us through the documents on record. The learned
counsel submitted that all throughout, the appellant’s
performance was beyond excellent, which is reflected from
the medals conferred on him. He pointed out that the
appellant had been awarded twelve times, including two
VSMs.
8. The learned counsel pointed out that there is
evidence adduced on record, including the statements of
the officers about the conduct of the fourth respondent
towards the appellant. The learned counsel submitted
that there was no reason to take such a view. His
submission is that the mala fides of the fourth respondent
towards the appellant must be considered.
9. Inviting our attention to the first impugned order, the
learned counsel pointed out that the second ACR for the
period 07/18 to 06/19 has been set aside partially, but the
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 4 of 12
earlier ACR of the period 12/17 to 06/18 has not been
interfered with, though the basis of both ACRs is the same.
He invited our attention to the finding recorded in the first
impugned order. In paragraph 35, he pointed out that
there is a finding that in the portion of the ACR that is not
to be disclosed to the appellant, the entries therein
distinctively showed the intent of the fourth respondent to
affect the lower figurative ratings intentionally, which is
masked from the knowledge of the appellant. His
submission is that there was no reason to treat the two
ACRs separately. He pointed out the role played by the
fourth respondent, who nursed a grudge against the
appellant. He submitted that the fourth respondent has
intelligently brought down merit in the first ACR. He
submitted that the fourth respondent had a biased and
premeditated intent against the appellant. He pointed out
that the appellant was graded ‘outstanding’ by the same
IO in the first ACR. Because there was a large flair of 8s
in the first ACR, the competitive rating of the appellant was
brought down despite an overall Box grading of 9. Thus,
presumably, grading 8 with the same assessment in the
second ACR is beyond the perception of any prudent man.
He also pointed out that ACRs for both periods were
written beyond the permitted time.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 5 of 12
th
10. As noted in the order dated 26 September 2024, the
learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) has produced
three sets of one file and two sets of ACRs, which were
returned to the learned ASG after perusal. The learned
ASG submitted that the Tribunal has provided cogent
reasons for not interfering with the first ACR. In the
second ACR, as it was found that the assessment was
biased and premeditated, the Tribunal expunged it. The
learned ASG pointed out that the assessment of the
officers through ACRs is being regulated by Army Order
bearing AO No.02/2016/MS. It provides for giving
numeric gradings from one to nine. It also provides a pen
picture of the officer by three different officers. The
assessment is made by three officers: (i) Initiating Officer
(IO); (ii) Reviewing Officer (RO); and (iii) Senior Reviewing
Officer (SRO). She also pointed out how assessments are
made using numeric values, ranging from nine to one. She
pointed out that the statutory and non-statutory
complaints made by the appellant were properly
considered and disposed of. She would, therefore, submit
that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal as regards the first ACR. She
relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt
1
v. Union of India & Ors .
1
(2008) 8 SCC 725
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 6 of 12
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
11. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Part I of the ACR in accordance with AO
No.02/2016/MS consists of personal data, service record
and authentication of data. Part II consists of personal
and demonstrated performance, which consists of
personal qualities and demonstrated performance
variables. The personal qualities and demonstrated
performance qualities include administrative acumen,
motivation, development of subordinates, emotional
stability, understanding viewpoints, foresight and
understanding, loyalty and respect, judicious delegation,
boldness, physical fitness and fluency in expression. The
assessment is to be made by the IO and RO. The rating is
given on a scale of nine to one. Then, there are pen pictures
by the IO, RO and SRO. The pen pictures by RO and the
SRO are not to be shown to the officer. Part III consists of
the potential for promotion, which is to be shown to the
officer reported upon. The Qualities to Assess Potential
are termed as QsAP. There are five QsAPs. They are
professional competence, vision and conceptual ability,
selflessness and setting of personal example, integrity and
moral courage and tolerance for ambiguity. The
assessment is to be made by the IO, RO and SRO. The last
portion of Part III is Box grading given by the IO, RO and
SRO. This part is not to be shown to the officer.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 7 of 12
12. As stated earlier, numerical values from 9 to 1 are
used for assessment. The numerical value of 9 is stated
as ‘outstanding’, and the numerical value of 7 or 8 is
treated as ‘above average’.
13. Now, we turn to the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
From paragraph 33 onwards, scrutiny of ACRs was made
by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of the first impugned
order deal with the ACR of the appellant from 07/18 to
06/19. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of the first impugned order
read thus:
“34. We have further examined the
subsequent ACR of the applicant
covering the period from 01.07.2018 to
30.06.2019, wherein the IO and the
SRO remain the same whereas there
has been a change of RO with effect
from 01.01.2019. Compared to the
previous report by the same IO, this
report under examination almost has a
similar pattern while grading the ratee
in individual boxes in PQs (Personal
Qualities) & DPVs (Demonstrated
Performance Variables) which is shown
to the ratee. The assessment of QsAP
(Qualities to Assess Potential) is
indicative of the potential of the ratee
for his suitability in higher ranks in
future, if promoted. The relatively
lower ratings in QsAP by IO as well as
the box grading which has been further
endorsed by the RO has not been
adequately justified by Respondents
except for the reason of inaccurate
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 8 of 12
initiation of Strength Return (IAFF
3008) of the officers of No 3 ABW and
non-communication of adverse
remarks in the ACR to a ratee officer
under the applicant.
35. Curiously, it is important to note
that the Respondent No.4 as IO has
maintained some figurative
assessment in the portion of the ACR
which is to be shown to the ratee, i.e.,
applicant and signed as seen. Whereas
it is only in the part of the ACR which
is not to be seen by the ratee, the IO
has awarded relatively low gradings.
Confidential reports are meant to be
the appraisal of performance of the
ratees. By maintaining similar
figurative gradings on the disclosed
part of the ACR, the reporting
officers have intended to indicate
the ratee that there is no downward
trend in his performance during the
period of report whereas in the
portion of the ACR that is not
disclosed to the applicant the report
has distinctively indicated the
intent to affect lower figurative
ratings intentionally masked from
the knowledge of the applicant.
36. We further note that the SRO who
remains common for both the reports
has endorsed the report of IO & RO as
justified and yet he has maintained
same box gradings in both his reports
under analysis. Therefore, the QsAPs
and the Box gradings of the CR
07/2018 to 06/2019 by RO warrant
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 9 of 12
interference and are required to be
expunged. ”
14. We had perused the ACRs of the appellant. The
reasons recorded while dealing with the ACR of 07/18 to
06/19 can be summarised as under:
i. The assessment of QsAP is indicative of the
potential of the ratee (appellant) for his
suitability in higher ranks in future, if
promoted;
ii. Relatively lower ratings in QsAP by the IO and
relatively lower ratings in Box grading by the IO
endorsed by the RO have not been adequately
justified by the respondents;
iii. The fourth respondent, in his capacity as IO,
has maintained the same figurative assessment
in the portion of ACR to be shown to the ratee
(appellant). However, it is only in the part of the
ACR which is not to be seen by the ratee
(appellant), the IO has awarded relatively low
gradings;
iv. SRO was the same for both the ratings who has
endorsed the report of the IO and the RO as
justified, but had maintained the same Box
gradings; and
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 10 of 12
v. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered expunction of
figurative ratings by the IO and the RO in QsAPs
and Box gradings in the second ACR (07/2018
to 06/2019).
15. The challenge before the Tribunal was to both the
ACRs. We may note here that IO and SRO for both the
ACRs are the same. IO is the fourth respondent. However,
RO for the two ACRs was different. The Tribunal has found
fault with the approach of the IO in awarding relatively low
gradings in that part of the ACR which is not visible to the
ratee (appellant). 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. After having perused
the ACRs, we are of the view that the same reasoning is
applicable to the ACR of the period from 12/17 to 06/18.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal has considered the case of the
first ACR only in the context of the performance
th
counselling letter dated 9 February 2018. We may note
here that the respondents have not challenged the finding
recorded in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the first impugned
order. We are, therefore, of the view that the first ACR
cannot be treated differently from the second ACR.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 11 of 12
16. 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. Accordingly,
th
the first impugned order dated 26 April 2023 is modified
by granting the aforesaid additional relief while
maintaining the relief already granted. 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.
17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as
to costs.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
…………………………….J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
May 14, 2025.
Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 Page 12 of 12