BRIJ AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Brigadier in the Indian Army. He was commissioned on 13th June 1963 in the Regiment of Artillery. In 1965 Indo -Pak war he was inducted in the fighting theatre on the western front and, during operations was badly and seriously wounded resulting into injurious to his various parts of the body, including right arm, left index finger, lower abdomen etc. etc. Actually the injuries were so serious that the petitioners right arm and left index finger had to be amputated later on. The petitioner says that he survived despite 90% disability determined by a Medical Board duly constituted as per established International Medical Standards. Despite the aforesaid 90% disability, the amputation of his right arm and left index finger and various other medical problems, the petitioner kept on serving in the Indian Army as a consequence of various decisions taken by the Government of India that all Battle causality officers should be retained in service to avoid demoralising effect of boarding out young disabled officers from service. Except however, this concession of retaining the officer in service, no other relaxation was provided to them for promotion in service or for compensation far disability etc. The petitioner therefore, says and submits that the had to compete with able bodied officers to get his feature promotion notwithstanding 90% disability which he had suffered in the 1965 Indo -Pak war The petitioner says that he rose to the rank of Brigadier because of his merit, outstanding performance and suitability.

(2.) NONE of the above stated facts have been controverted by the respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner was holding the appointment of Commandant, Central Vehicles Depot, Delhi Cantt. (CVD Delhi Cantt,), prior to his having been posted as Brigadier A Hqrs. Northern Command. Respondent No, 4 Maj General Mohinder Singh who has since retired from Army service was the petitioners next superior officer while he was serving as a Commandant CVD Delhi and in that capacity was petitioners Initiating Officer (10) during the period the petitioner was serving in CVD Delhi, for the purposes of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). It appears that for the period September 1990 to August 1991 and September 1991 to June 1992, respondent No. 4 had initiated the petitioners ACRs which were not complementary to him and in which the petitioner were not wholly either commensurate with this performance or in consonance with his promotional prospects, based upon his merit and his suitability. Since both the ACRs initiated by respondent No. 4 were such which were not helpful to the petitioner and which had the potential of jeopardizing the petitioners service interests, particularly in the matter of his promotion to the next higher rank. The petitioner represented against both these ACRs to the Chief of Army Staff, respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 5th May 1292, the Chief of Army Staff expunged the entire assessment in the ACRs for the period September 1990 to August 1991, as initiated by respondent No. 4 on ground of inconsistency, In so far as the second ACR for the period September 1991 to June 1992 was concerned, vide communication dated 9th December 1992, the Chief of Army Staff, after considering all relevant aspects granted the limited relief of expunction of those entries which had five points awarded by respondent No. 4 in the relevant column of the said ACRs. It shall be advantageous to reproduce the test of the communication dated 9th December 1992 which reads thus: -