2018 Supreme(SC) 692

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Union of India & Others – Appellants
VERSUS
Col Ran Singh Dudee – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11009 of 2017 AND CIVIL APPEAL (Diary No.40312/2017) No. 5973 of 2018
Decided On : 03-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
“Consequential benefits” would be those which are easily quantifiable namely those in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits but cannot be construed to include promotions which are strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection.
Sympathy cannot outweigh the considerations on merit.
When disciplinary award forms part of the overall profile of an Officer, consideration of award of reprimand, though of 1991, cannot be held illegal.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Promotion – Defence forces – “Consequential benefits” – Annulment of General Court Martial proceedings – Such benefits would be those which are easily quantifiable namely those in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits – Cannot be construed to include promotions which are strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection – Considerations which apply to other government servants in the matter of promotion cannot as a matter of course be applied to defence personnel – Promotion of batch mates cannot be taken as measure. (Para 6)

       (2000) 6 SCC 698; (1990) 3 SCC 305; 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441; (2008) 2 SCC 649; 1989 Suppl (1) SCC 416 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of justice – Opinion of Solicitor General – Not consistent with the provisions of the relevant rules and the law declared in K.D. Gupta – Department rightly expressing serious reservations – Tribunal attaching undue importance to opinion of Law officer. (Para 7)

       1989 Suppl (1) SCC 416 – Relied upon

       (c) Service law – Defence forces – Promotion – Disciplinary award forming part of the overall profile of an Officer – Reprimand, though in 1991 – Consideration by Selection Committee held consistent with Selection Policy – Assessment by Selection committee held not perverse. (Para 9, 10)

       (d) Administration of justice – Sympathy cannot outweigh the considerations on merit. (Para 12)

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent was initially enrolled in the Indian Army as Sowar in 1981. He cleared the examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission in the year 1988 and got commissioned as an Officer and was posted as Second Lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps of the Army. During his career, he received some commendations and appreciations. However, the respondent was summarily tried and upon the respondent pleading guilty was sentenced to ‘Reprimand’.

       While the respondent was serving as Major in 2004-05, he was tried by General Court Martial on four charges.

       On 16.05.2005, he was found guilty of the first and third charges but not guilty of the second and fourth charges and was sentenced to be cashiered and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentence awarded by the General Court Martial was confirmed with remission of six months out of three years rigorous imprisonment.

       The respondent preferred statutory complaint. During the pendency of said complaint, selection for promotion to the rank of Colonel of 1988 Batch Officers was undertaken in August 2006 and appropriate selections were made. Since the respondent, by that time had stood punished in the General Court Martial, his candidature was not considered.

       By Order dated 20.11.2013, the Central Government allowed the Statutory Complaint preferred by the respondent with all consequential benefits.

       The respondent was thereafter reinstated in service on 13.01.2014 and paid all consequential benefits for the entire period. On 16.08.2014, the respondent was promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel with effect from 16.12.2004.

       Sometime in January, 2015, an officer who was junior to the respondent was promoted to the rank of Brigadier. A representation was therefore made by the respondent for grant of all “consequential benefits”. Around this time on 30.06.2015, the respondent was granted Time Scale promotion as Colonel, on completion of 26 years of service.

       The Law Officer of the Government of India opined that the respondent could not be denied promotion to the rank his batch mates and immediate juniors were promoted, that the Government of India having directed in the Order dated 20.11.2013 that all consequential benefits be given to the respondent, the mandatory demands under the relevant Rules would stand waived and that the respondent should be granted the rank of a Brigadier. No.3 Selection Board was thereafter constituted and in the assessment made by said Selection Board on 26.04.2016, the respondent was not found fit and as such was not empanelled.

       The respondent filed OA in the Armed Forces Tribunal which found that the respondent was not fit to be promoted by selection to the post of Colonel.

       The assessment made by the aforesaid No.3 Selection Board was approved by Chief of Army Staff.

       While allowing Original Application, the Tribunal directed the appellants to constitute a fresh Selection Board and reconsider the case of the respondent in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded costs to the respondent which were quantified at Rs.5 lakhs.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment and order of the tribunal cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.