‘Whistleblower’ colonel got poor ACRs as he damaged ‘organisational health’: AFT

An officer in the Mechanised Infantry, Colonel Chauhan was posted as Colonel Quartermaster (Col Q) in the 33 Armoured Division in Hisar in September 2013.

Colonel Chauhan said he had also complained to the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar regarding the matter and the minister ordered a CBI inquiry into the affair based on the evidence he had provided.

2017 AFT petition

The officer had filed a petition in AFT in 2017 stating that due to the bias against him for having been a whistleblower in the case, he was given weak/adverse ACRs by the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO).

“Due to certain incidents related to allocation of land in the Military Station for installation of Airtel Mobile tower, the ACR of the applicant for period of Aug 2013-Feb 2014 was allegedly written in an adverse manner by his reporting officers thereby halting his future career progression including his nomination on the important course of Higher Command (HC) and Higher Defence Management Course (HDMC) or similar equivalent courses which are essential elements for promotion to the rank of Brig and beyond,” he stated in his petition.

Dismissing his contentions that he was victimised, the AFT ruled its verdict in November 2023 on his 2017 petition. “Therefore, it is our considered view that the applicant has been responsible to a certain extent in damaging the organisational health leading to initiation of a weak ACR on him and endorsement of the same by RO and SRO,” reads the order by Justice Rajendra Menon and Lieutenant General C P Mohanty (retd).

The AFT bench also said in its order that is of the considered opinion that “In absence of express malafide or biasness, a judicial forum should refrain from adducing the assessment of the Reporting Officers or the findings of the Selection Board….”.

Representation to defence ministry

Earlier, Colonel Chauhan had also given a representation to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) against his ACRs and said he had been deliberately harmed as he had shown moral courage and reported acts of corruption. In his complaint, he gave details of a case involving the installation of ‘Cell on Wheels’ in Hisar Military station and alleged that the due procedure was not followed in the case.

The officer also said he was posted by GOC 33 Armoured Division to an inconsequential appointment in Ambala under an officer known to him.

Giving partial redressal to the Colonel, MoD stated in a letter that the officer had alleged that his superiors were involved in irregularities and corruption with a vendor for purchase from Regimental and Public funds in the station.

It said the officer had given details of the same and averred that reporting officers were also involved in the scam and may have possibly connived with the company for financial gratification. It added the officer had said that three whistleblowers, including him, had raised this matter to the COAS, Army Commander, and Corps Commander.

“Officer has given details of his conversation with the then GOC-in-C Western Command and feels that whatever has transpired in his case against corruption has been covered up on his behest. The officer further states that the Chief of Staff, HQ 1 Corps, carried out the preliminary investigation on the case but arbitrarily did not recommend a proper Court of Inquiry, in a way, to help the delinquent officers in getting away and to cover up all issues,” the MoD letter quoted in the AFT order states.

‘Lack of patience’

The counsel for the respondents had refuted the colonel’s allegations and said the proposal for ‘Cell on Wheels’ at the Hisar military station was approved by the then General Officer Commanding, 33 Armoured Division, in June 2010 which was three years before Colonel Chauhan was posted as Colonel Q. The counsel submitted all procedures were followed in sanctioning the cell phone tower.

On its part, the AFT bench said the petitioner had displayed a lack of patience for any response or action by the General Officer Commanding, 33 Armoured Division, and without awaiting the outcome, he had chosen to raise the level to higher commanders.

“That apart, we find that once again, without waiting for any response from the GOC-in-C South Western Command or GOC 1 Corps or GOC 33 Armoured Division, the applicant had chosen to file a police complaint at Sadar Police Station, Hisar against Respondent NO. 6 on 25th February 2014. It is our well-considered opinion that the applicant has neither displayed any restraint or patience in granting time to his hierarchy to either investigate the matter or take action on his complaints which is a legitimate expectation from a senior officer of the Armed Forces,” the AFT order said.



“Even if we grant credence to the applicant for his uprightness and role as a whistleblower, for bringing the alleged wrongdoings of his seniors to the notice of the authorities, we cannot endorse the methodology adopted by him and the time granted by him to the authorities to investigate and take action, which is in our opinion had to be a legally tenable procedure and thus, the applicant has clearly failed to appreciate the same, in spite of being a highly responsible and senior officer of the Armed Forces”.