The court established that ACR assessments must be consistent and free from bias, ensuring fairness in military evaluations and promotions.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. To appreciate the controversy involved, a few key factual details must be considered. After completing successful training at the Indian Military Academy, the appellant was commissioned as a Lieutenant on 14th December 1991 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. It is now known as the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME). Though the appellant served in the EME, he also served as operations staff in various locations, including high-altitude areas and counter insurgency (operations). He was promoted from time to time. Eventually, he reached the rank of Brigadier. He had undertaken several courses and secured instructional gradings in all the graded courses. He was selected for the United Nations Mission. The appellant claims to be a decorated soldier who has been awarded twelve times and has been awarded the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) twice and was commanding the only R&D establishment of the Indian Army.

2. On 8th December 2017, the appellant was posted as a Commandant, 3 Advance Base Workshop in the Northern Command. The appellant earned two Annual Confidential Reports (for short, ‘ACRs’) during the period he worked in the Northern Command. He earned ACRs from the fourth respondent for the periods from December, 2017 to June, 2018 (12/17 to 06/18) and from July, 2018 to June, 2019 (07/18 to 06/19). According to the appellant's case, the fourth respondent gave lukewarm reports due to his bias against the appellant.

3. Prior to the aforesaid two ACRs written by the fourth respondent, the appellant was on the top of the batch based on his performance, profile, and awards. On 5th November 2019, the appellant submitted a first statutory complaint pointing out that he was not nominated for the NDC/APPA course. The complaint was rejected. Even the second statutory complaint filed by the appellant based on a few additional facts on the conduct of the fourth respondent, was rejected. In June/July 2021, the appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Major General, but was not empanelled. Therefore, he submitted a non-statutory complaint on 5th August 2021, which was rejected on 19th January 2022.

4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant filed an Original Application No. 125/2022 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). In the original application, the following prayers were made before the Tribunal:

“a) Call for complete ACRs of the applicant and set aside the assessment of IO and RO in the impugned ACR for the period 12/17-06/18 and 7/18- 06/19.

b) Call for the records and set aside the result of No.1 Selection Board held for consideration of the applicant for the rank of Maj Gen.”

5. The Tribunal, by the first impugned order dated 26th April 2023, granted partial relief. The Tribunal directed expunction of figurative ratings by Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) in Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings of ACR for the period from 07/18 to 06/19. The Tribunal also directed reconsideration of the appellant’s promotion to the rank of Major General within three months, without any loss to seniority.

6. The appellant filed a Misc. App. No. 2094/2023 in the aforesaid O.A. No. 125/2022, seeking leave to file an appeal against the first impugned order before this Court. By the second impugned order dated 25th May 2023, the application for the grant of leave for filing an appeal was rejected.

SUBMISSIONS

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the documents on record. The lear