‘If every Army officer is graded outstanding, it would defeat very purpose of appraisal’: Defence Ministry to Delhi High Court

Upon promotion to the rank of Brigadier in March 2018, Mehta commanded 62 Armoured Brigade from March 2018 to July 2020 and earned 5 Confidential Reports (CRs) during this period.

Of these, though in the first three CRs he was graded ‘outstanding’, however, in CR-4 and in CR-5 he was graded ‘above average’. Aggrieved by such grading, the Brigadier filed a statutory complaint with the Defence Ministry seeking expunging of the grading given by the senior reviewing officer in CR-4 and removal of CR-5 in its entirety.

He claimed that the said grading of ‘above average’ was 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.

The statutory complaint filed with the Defence Ministry was earlier rejected as the CRs were found to be fair, objective, well corroborated, performance based and technically valid, and hence did not merit any interference.

Armed Forces Tribunal sets aside CR-4

The petitioner then filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal in 2022 which set aside the fourth Confidential Report (CR-4).

“The reviewing officer (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 officer’. Thus, in view of the difference in the grading by the Initiating Officer (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,” the tribunal said.

Brigadier moves Delhi HC against CR-5

The Brigadier, thereafter, moved the Delhi High Court to get the CR-5 set aside. “Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the 62 Armed Brigade under the command of the petitioner was split between Suratgarh and Kanpur and his quarter was located at Suratgarh (Rajasthan), the IO (i.e. GOC 4 RAPID) was located at Prayagraj (U.P), the RO (i.e. GOC 1 Corps) was located at Mathura and the SRO (i.e. GOC in-C South-Western Command) was located at Jaipur (Rajasthan), the SRO did not even meet the petitioner during the relevant period of CR-5. The same clearly shows that the grading was given without proper assessment of the petitioner as also due to the limited interaction with the petitioner because of Covid-19 pandemic,” the high court noted.

The counsel for MoD submitted in the court that the assessment of ‘outstanding’ denoted by the numerical ‘9’ is reserved for exceptional special achievements of the officer concerned during the reporting period which is beyond the performance of an officer with ‘above average’ performance.

The Defence Ministry submitted that the assessing officers are required to maintain some differentiation between truly outstanding officer and others, and if every officer is graded ‘outstanding’, it would defeat the very purpose of appraisal.

Thus, no officer has any right to claim an ‘outstanding’ assessment in the Confidential Reports, and it is upon the assessing officers who are competent to objectively assess an officer’s performance to independently grade him, the counsel said.

The high court dismissed the petition agreeing with the grounds laid down by the AFT in its decision earlier. It also noted that since there is no provision of any requirement of providing any interaction to anyone like the petitioner with either the 10 or the RO or with the SRO, there can hardly be any reason for the court to provide or give any occasion of interaction of the petitioner with either the IO, the RO or the SRO as such.

“AFT, while adjudicating the case of the petitioner has not found any perversity, arbitrariness, mala fide, bias or such on the part of the respondents be it the 1O, the RO or the SRO at the time of grading/ assessing the CR-5 of the petitioner or in the procedure/ mechanism followed by them or the practice adopted by them or the findings rendered by them.

Since this court is agreeable with the reasons and findings rendered by the learned AFT, there is no occasion for the petitioner to be permitted to once again reargue the same facts under the garb of the present petition and call this Court to once again re-adjudicate upon them,” the high court stated in its verdict.