IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the importance of consistency and justification in the grading of Confidential Reports (CRs) for commissioned officers in the armed forces.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

1. The petitioner, after being commissioned into 63 Cavalry, an armoured regiment on 13.06.1992, was first promoted to the rank of Colonel in September 2009 and then to the rank of Brigadier in March 2018, wherein he commanded 62 Armoured Brigade [Hereinafter referred to as 'Armd Bde'] from 31.03.2018 to 05.07.2020 and earned 5 Confidential Reports [Hereinafter referred to as 'CR'] during this period. Of these, though in the first three CRs he was graded 'Outstanding', however, in CR-4 for the period 01.07.2019 to 11.02.2020 and in CR-5 for the period 12.02.2020 to 30.06.2020, he was graded 'Above Average'.

2. Aggrieved by such grading, the petitioner filed a statutory complaint dated 05.02.2022, seeking expunging of the grading given by the Senior Reviewing Officer [Hereinafter referred to as 'SRO'] in CR-4 and removal of CR-5 in its entirety, claiming that the said grading of 'Above Average' therein were inconsistent with his previous reports and his achievements and that they are bound to have an adverse effect on his overall profile and be detrimental to his future prospects. Vide order dated 22.06.2022, the statutory complaint was rejected as the impugned CRs were found to be fair, objective, well corroborated, performance based and technically valid, and hence did not merit any interference.

3. The petitioner then filed an O.A. 288/2022 before the Regional Bench, Jaipur of the Armed Forces Tribunal [Hereinafter referred to as 'AFT'] on 27.07.2022, which was transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi vide order dated 09.12.2022, and renumbered as O.A. 06/2023.

4. The learned AFT, while partly allowing O.A. 06/2023 vide order dated 08.08.2023 expunged the CR-4 entirely but upheld the CR-5, inter- alia, holding as under:-

a. As regards the impugned CR-4, a comparison of CR-4 and the preceding CR-3 indicated that the same were initiated by the same Initiating Officer [Hereinafter referred to as 'IO'] and while in CR-3, the applicant was awarded 'Outstanding' in 11 qualities and 'Above Average' in 5 qualities, in CR-4, he was awarded 'Outstanding' in 9 qualities and 'Above Average' in 7 qualities. Though there is a shift in the grading from CR-3, the pen picture in CR-4 is also laudatory and does not reflect any reasons necessitating a downward change in the overall grading and the IO, despite knowledge of both the CRs, has failed to accord any reasons for the downgrading.

b. The Reviewing Officer [Hereinafter referred to as 'RO'] had mentioned the applicant's performance as 'Outstanding', while the SRO did not make a suitable pen picture to substantiate his grading of 'Above Average' in CR-4, and had only endorsed a cryptic "An above average offr.". Thus, in view of the difference in the grading by the IO and the RO, the SRO ought to have substantiated his grading through a suitable pen picture, which he failed to do, rendering CR-4 as inconsistent and liable to be set aside.

c. As regards CR-5, though the SRO was the same, the IO and RO were different and hence the grading was de novo, since the IO and RO were unaware of the previous CRs. The applicant had been rated 'Outstanding' in 11 qualities and 'Above Average' in 5 qualities and both the IO and the RO had rated the applicant as 'Above Average', which were consistent with the grading by the SRO who had also assessed the applicant as 'Above Average', and hence the CR-5 being consistent required no interference.

5. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has now filed the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ of CERTIORARI, to quash the final judgement/order dated 08.08.2023 passed by Ld. Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, only to the extent Ld. Tribunal has arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's prayer made in the OA for setting aside his complete CR covering the period 12.02.2020 to 30.06.2020 (CR-5) and ha