14 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v/s Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the reconsideration of a decorated Brigadier's promotion to the rank of Major General, finding that a biased assessment by his Initiating Officer (IO) had unfairly impacted his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The Court extended the relief previously granted by the Armed Forces Tribunal, directing the expunction of negative figurative and box gradings from an earlier ACR as well.

The appellant, commissioned as a Lieutenant in 1991, had a distinguished career in the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME), serving in high-altitude and counter-insurgency operations, earning multiple promotions to the rank of Brigadier, and being awarded the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) twice.

The core of the dispute revolved around two ACRs written by the fourth respondent, the Brigadier's IO, for the periods December 2017 to June 2018 (12/17 to 06/18) and July 2018 to June 2019 (07/18 to 06/19). The appellant alleged that these "lukewarm" reports were a result of the fourth respondent's bias, which subsequently affected his consideration for the prestigious NDC/APPA course and his promotion to Major General.

Initially, the Armed Forces Tribunal had granted partial relief, directing the expunction of certain ratings from the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19) and ordering a reconsideration of his promotion. However, the Tribunal did not interfere with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18).

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, meticulously examined the structure of ACRs as per Army Order No. 02/2016/MS, which includes both disclosed and undisclosed portions of assessment. The Court noted the Tribunal's finding that in the undisclosed portion of the second ACR, the IO (fourth respondent) had awarded "relatively low gradings" despite maintaining "similar figurative gradings" in the portion shown to the appellant. This indicated an "intent to affect lower figurative ratings intentionally masked from the knowledge of the applicant."

The Supreme Court found that the same reasoning and intent applied equally to the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18), as the IO and Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO) for both ACRs were the same. Since the respondents (Indian Army) had not challenged the Tribunal's finding regarding the biased intent in the second ACR, the Supreme Court saw no justification for treating the two ACRs differently.

Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the Tribunal's order, directing the expunction of figurative ratings by the IO and Reviewing Officer (RO) in Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings in the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18) as well.

This means the Brigadier's case for promotion to Major General will now be reconsidered, taking into account the expunctions from both contentious ACRs. The Court stipulated that if the appellant has already superannuated, his case for notional promotion and monetary benefits must be considered within three months.