IMPORTANT POINTS
Mere delay in processing of statutory complaint cannot entitle an officer to promotion if he/she is not entitled otherwise.
Wrong application of instructions will not vitiate process if the officer concerned is not prejudiced.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. These Appeals arises out of a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal by which the rejection of the statutory complaint filed by the Appellant was upheld. The Appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Lieutenant in the year 1975. She was promoted as a Brigadier on 05.12.2005 and as Rear Admiral/Major General on 24.11.2007. The Appellant retired as Surgeon Rear Admiral on 31.05.2012. As she was not promoted as Surgeon Vice Admiral, she filed a statutory complaint on 15.07.2010 seeking following reliefs :

“(a) Five ACRs prior to ICR- 2007 be compared with ICR-2007 and ACR-2008.

(b) Total Expunction of ICR – 2007:- If markings in the assessment on a Select Surg Rear Admiral for selection to the next rank of Surg Vice Admiral are inadequate for selection even to the first Select rank of Surg Caption/Equivalent from the rank of Surg Commander/Equivalent.

(c) Total Expunction of ACT 2008:- If markings in the assessment on a Select Surg Rear Admiral for selection to the next rank of Surg Vice Admiral are inadequate for selection even to the first Select rank of Surg Captain/Equivalent from the rank of Surg Commander/Equivalent.”

2. By an order dated 02.09.2011, the statutory complaint was disposed of by giving partial relief to the Appellant which is as follows:

“(a) Box grading awarded by SRO in ICR 2006, being inconsistent with the pen picture and profile of the officer,

(b) Box grading awarded by DGAFMS in ACR 2006, being technically invalid,

(c) Numerical grading awarded by IO, RO and FTO in ICR 2007 on grounds of inconsistency with established profile,

(d) Numerical grading awarded by SRO, DGMS (Army) and DGAFMS in ACR 2008 on grounds of inconsistency with established profile,

(e) Numerical grading awarded by DGAFMS in SCR 2009, being inconsistent, and

(f) Entire assessment, including box grading, awarded by DGMS (N) as HOS in SCR 2009, being technically invalid.

3. Dissatisfied with the partial redressal of grievance, the Appellant filed O.A. No.19/2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”) which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Appellant is before this Court challenging the validity of the said order of the Tribunal.

4. The grievance of the Appellant is that her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2006-2009 have not been properly recorded. She alleged in the statutory complaint that the ACR for the year 2008 was initiated by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda who was working as Deputy Director General Medical Services (DDGMS) Madhya Bharat area. The Appellant apprehended that Brigadier G.S. Manchanda, who was her colleague, would have not assessed her fairly. She sought for reassessment of the Interim Confidential Report of 2007 and Annual Confidential Repot of 2008 by looking into the past five years’ Confidential Reports.

5. The Appellant contended that the Confidential Reports recorded by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda who was her Initiating Officer are biased. As Brigadier G.S. Manchanda was in the same rank as of the Appellant, she apprehended that he might have marked the Appellant low in the ACR for the year 2008. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that according to Para 18 (c) SAO No.8/S/91 of the Army Order, Confidential Reports will normally be initiated by the immediate Commanding Officer. However, it is provided that an officer of the same rank can also initiate Confidential Reports but will not endorse the recommendation for promotion to the next rank. On a perusal of the record, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellant failed to prove any malice or bias on the part of the officers concerned in recording the Confidential Reports. The overall ratings of the Appellant were found to have been improved. The apprehension of the Appellant that Brigadier G.S. Manchanda could not have graded her correctly was found to be not correct by the Tribunal. The Confidential Report initiated by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda as I