MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. One of the common issues which arises in all these petitions is -"whether it is necessary for the respondents to communicate the Annual confidential Report to the concerned employee if in a particular ACR, not otherwise adverse, the employee is downgraded as compared to his previous acrs?" This is the central issue which arises in these petitions and further course of action as well as outcome of the cases at hand would have bearing on the decision of this issue.

(2.) WE may point out at the outset that the cases at hand are not of civilian employees in the Government. The petitioners/appellants are either members of defence services. Whether different principle of law is applicable in cases of such employees belonging to disciplined forces would be the related question. For determining this question, we may discuss the facts of lpa No. 148/1997. This we do so for the reason that this LPA filed by Major bahadur Singh was earlier decided in his favour by a Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 7. 2. 2003. However, the Supreme Court, in appeal, has reversed the said judgment and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. The judgment of the Supreme Court in reported as Union of india and Anr. v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368. The observations made in this judgment shall guide our path. It is for this reason we are treating this LPA as the lead case.

(3.) LPA No. 148/1997 the appellant was granted Permanent Regular Commission on 3. 5. 1978 in the Army Service Corps (ASC) of the Indian Army. He was promoted to the rank of Major in December 1987. Thereafter, he was granted substantial rank of Major on 3. 5. 1989. During this period, he was given further professional training in 12 Army Courses. According to him, his assessments in these courses was very good. He was recommended for instructional duties as Colonel after successful command of 2nd Line ASC battalion. He also got higher academic qualification, i. e. B. Sc. (Hons. ). The appellant further claims that during the 20 years which he spent in service, he served in various capacities, both in command of troops and on staff jobs, including technical duties. His sense of responsibility, integrity and professional skill, as assessed by various superior officers, has stood out. From 1988-96 he was given good ratings in his ACRs, as is depicted from the following extracts:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_347_DRJ105_2008Html1.htm</FRM> In the Army, assessment is figurative, as is clear from the aforesaid grading. 7-8 figurative marks are considered as 'above Average'. Still an officer graded 'above Average' with 7 marks is generally not able to make the grade and achieve higher rank of Lt. Colonel. After consideration of the appellant's case, he was informed by the respondents that the Selection Board did not recommend him for promotion to the said rank of Lt. Colonel. This was on the basis of Selection Board No. IV, which had taken place from 1. 8. 1995 to 11. 8. 1995. Against non-approval of his promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel, the appellant put up statutory complaint on 3. 10. 1995 for setting aside of ACR initiated on him while serving at CFL, Delhi during the period 1987 to January 1990. His statutory company was, however, rejected vide orders dated 27. 9. 1996 on the ground that it was submitted after abnormal delay of 13 months. The appellant, thereafter, preferred petition under Section 27 of the Army Act, which was also rejected vide orders dated 13. 1. 1997. During this period, the petitioner was again considered by a Selection Board held from 28. 7. 1996 to 9. 8. 1996 as a first review case of 1978 batch. He was again not approved for promotion. The case of the appellant was considered as a final review case of 1978 batch with same results.