After companysideration of all aspects of the companyplaint and viewing it against the redress sought by the companyplaint, the COAS has directed that partial redress be granted by way of expunction of companyplete assessment of the IO SRO in CR 01/87 05/88, on grounds of subjectivity.
The appellants venture of crossing over the stumbling block in the form of his ACRs was frustrated by judicial pronouncements by the High Court, firstly by the Single Judge and then by the Division Bench vide the order impugned in this appeal.
After hearing lengthy arguments from both sides and perusing the records shown to us by the learned companynsel for the respondent, we find that the ACRs of the appellant cannot be termed to be adverse entitling him the filing of statutory companyplaint for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Government Order relied upon by him.
Even though the respondents were number bound to decide the number statutory companyplaint filed by the appellant, yet they disposed of the same by partially deciding in his favour by the order dated 7th February, 1996 which reads as Reference your letter number308/13/A PC dated 23 Aug 95.
Non statutory companyplaint dated 12 Apr 95 submitted by IC 37110 M Maj AK Sinha, Inf GARH against supersession has been examined against overall profile of the officer and other relevant documents.
It was also directed that the said aberrations be removed from the CR Dossier of the appellant and he be companysidered for promotion by any appropriate Selection Board in accordance with the policy.
The appellant claimed to have been companymissioned in the Army as Second Lieutenant on Short Service Commission in the month of September, 1977.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to various paras of Instructions for rendering Confidential Reports on Officers hereinafter referred to as the Instructions to urge that the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1989 90 are liable to be quashed being adverse and the appellant eligible for promotion on the basis of the Government order dated 22nd June, 1989.
In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents it was submitted that all officers of a particular batch were companysidered together with such cut off ACRs and inputs on the basis of individual profile of officers and the batch merit before making the promotion.
It was held that numberinjustice has been done to the appellant on account of the illegalities alleged in his statutory companyplaint.
COAS has also directed that the said aberration be removed from the CR Dossier of the officer and he be reconsidered for promotion by the appropriate Selection Board in accordance with the policy.
Even though the ACRs, particularly paras 11, 12 and 18 of which the appellant is aggrieved, were companyveyed to him on 28th December, 1990, the extract of which he returned to the authorities on 6th November, 1990, after duly signing the same, yet numbercomplaint, much less a statutory companyplaint, was filed by the appellant till the year 1996.
Accordingly necessary expunctions has been carried out in the CRD of the office.
1.5.1978 and was posted as Major on 1.5.1989.
It may be mentioned that prior to filing of the statutory companyplaint, the appellant had availed of the remedy of a number statutory companyplaint which was partially allowed by way of expunction of companyplete assessment of the IO and SRO in CR 01/87 05/88 on grounds of subjectivity.
In the light of the companynter affidavit filed and failure of the appellant to show the violation of any law or rule, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition whereafter the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal which was rejected vide the order impugned, hence this appeal.
It was further submitted that ACR alone was number the sole criterion for promotion to the higher post.
Apprehending that he was number promoted on account of the ACRs for the period 1989 90, the appellant made a statutory companyplaint on 19th March, 1996 which was rejected after examination of the relevant records.
Approved officers were empanelled and then promoted in order of their seniority.
His ingenuity to overcome the hurdles, namely, his ACRs was prompted by the letter of Army Headquarters bearing No.32666 dated 22nd June, 1989 which, inter alia, provided that the cases of the officers who had put in companyplaints against their ACRs and were awaiting decisions in legal companyrse shall be given a definite grading in the Selection Board.
The respondents categorically stated that there was numberadverse entry recorded in the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1989 90.
He was absorbed as permanent Commissioned Officer as a Captain w.e.f.
Not satisfied with the expunction of the alleged adverse remarks, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said order purporting to have been passed in his favour on his companyplaint.
The case of the appellant was stated to have been companysidered thrice by the Selection Board, i.e., a fresh companysideration, first review and final review and he was number found fit for promotion by the Board.
Colonel, the appellant resorted to judicial proceedings with the object of getting rid of his ACRs which, at all the times, came in his way while making selection on the basis of companyparative merit with other eligible persons in the service of the Armed Forces.
As he was number promoted to the post of Lt.
This companyplaint was also rejected on merits vide order dated 1st October, 1996.
Colonel, he made a representation to the respondent authorities which were rejected vide the order impugned in the writ petition.
Dejected by his successive failures in getting promotion to the rank of Lt.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
