NAIB SUBEDAR MAJOR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Mechanized Infantry on 22. 06. 1981 and earned his promotions up to the rank of Havildar. The petitioner was granted a Junior Commission as Naib Subedar in 1997. The petitioner claims to have earned outstanding ACRs which resulted in his posting in critical posts. The petitioner in September, 2003 came to know of his adverse ACR for the period 2002-2003 when he was asked to sign an extract of the said ACR. The petitioner had been granted four points out of nine points, which is an average grading. The consequence was that when the candidates were considered for promotion to the rank of Subedars, the petitioner was not promoted while his juniors were promoted on 01. 04. 2004

(2.) THE petitioner submitted a non statutory complaint dated 21. 04. 2004 against the said ACR for the period of 2002-2003, but the same was rejected on 05. 12. 2004 Thereafter the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner dated 30. 04. 2005 was also returned by the Army Headquarters on account of the same being submitted beyond the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of initiation of the extract of the ACR. The petitioner filed WP (C) 894/2006 before this Court challenging the said ACR and seeking promotion to the rank of a Subedar. The petition was disposed of by an Order dated 23. 01. 2006 directing that the statutory complaint be again filed by the petitioner and be considered on merits. The petitioner on being called upon to submit the statutory complaint, however, stated that whatever he had to state was so stated in the previous complaint and thus desired that his earlier statutory complaint be considered on merits. The statutory complaint was accordingly considered by the chief of Army Staff, but was rejected vide Order dated 26. 05. 2006. It is this order, which is sought to be impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Chief of Army Staff has opined that the ACR of the petitioner was performance-based, corroborative, objective and was unbiased. There was no mala fide intent on the part of either the initiating Officer ("io" for short) or the Reviewing Officer ("ro" for short ). The overall gradings and the pen picture of both the IO and the RO were communicated to the petitioner in accordance with provisions of para 44 of AO 1/2002/mp though the petitioner refused to sign the same. The petitioner having not met the ACR criteria, his promotion was rightly rejected.