MAJOR AROON KUMAR SINHA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MAJOR AROON KUMAR SINHA 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 200 I 
(K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law : Armed Forces 
Instructions for rendering Confidential Reports of Officers: Paragraphs 
107 and 108. 
C 
Annual Confidential Reports-Adverse remarks in-Statutory and non-
statutory complaints against-Filing of-:-Beyond prescribed period-
Maintainabi/ity of-Instructions prescribed a time-limit of 60 days extendable, 
under exceptional circumstances, to 90 days for filing of statutory or non- D 
statutory complains-Army Officer filed a statutory complaint against his ACRs 
after lapse of more than 5 years-Held, the authorities are not bound to 
decide such belated complaints. 
Army Act, 1950 : 
Section 27-Statutory complaint-Filing of-Beyond prescribed period-- E 
Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable. 
The appellant was commissioned in the Army as Second Lieutenant on 
Short Service Commission and later on absorbed as a permanent 
Commissioned Officer. As the appellant was not promoted to the post of Lt. F 
Colonel he made a representation to the respondent authorities, which was 
rejected. Paragraphs 107 and 108 of the instructions for rendering 
Confidential Reports on Officers prescribed a time-limit of 60 days extendable, 
under exceptional circumstances, to 90 days for tiling of statutory or non-
statutory complaints against adverse remarks in ACRs. Apprehending that 
he was not promoted on account of the ACRs for the period 1989-90, the G 
appellant made a statutory complaint after a lapse of more than 5 years under 
Section 27 Army Act, 1950, which was rejected. However, prior to the tiling 
of the statutory complaint the appellant had tiled a non-statutory complaint, 
which was partially allowed. Being aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition 
before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
H 
9 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : I. The appellant, admittedly, had not filed any statutory or non-
statutory complaint within the time prescribed under paragraphs 107 and 
I 08 of the Instructions for rendering of Confidential Reports on Officers. 
(13-E) 
2. Even though the respondents were not bound to decide the non-
statutory complaint filed by the appellant in view of paragraphs 107 and 108 
of the said Instructions yet they disposed of the same by partially deciding in 
his favour. Therefore, no injustice has been done to the appellant by the action 
C of the respondents. [12-G-H; 13-E[ 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4663 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.1999 of the Patna High Court 
in LPA No. 523/98. 
David Rao and Khwairakpam Nobin Singh for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Shail Kumar Dwivedi for 
the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
Dejected by his successive failures in getting promotion to the rank of 
Lt. Colonel, the appellant resorted to judicial proceedings with the object of 
F getting rid of his ACRs which, at all the times, came in his way while 
making, selection on the basis of comparative merit with other eligible persons 
in the service of the Armed Forces. His ingenuity to overcome the hurdles, 
namely, his ACRs was prompted by the letter of Ar111y Headquarters bearing 
No. 32666 dated 22nd June, 1989 which, inter alia, provided that the cases 
of the officers who had put in complaints against their ACRs and were 
G awaiting decisions in legal course shall be given a definite grading in the 
Selection Board. The appellant's 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. 
H 
The appellant claimed to have been commissioned m the Army as 
' . 
MA.IOR A.K. SINHA v. U.0.1. [SETHI, J.] 
! 1 
Second Lieutenant on Short Service Commission in the month of September, A 
1977. He was absorbed as permanent Commissioned Officer as a Captain 
w.e.f. 1.5.1978 and was posted as Major on 1.5.1989. As he was not promoted 
to the post of Lt. Colonel, he made a representation to the respondent 
authorities which were rejected vide the order impugned in the writ petition. 
Apprehending that he was not promoted on account of the ACRs for the B 
period 1989-90, the appellant made a statutory complaint on 19th Ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.