UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 22-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH 
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Annual Confidential Report (ACR)-Appraisal and grading-Judicial 
review-Scope and ambit of-Selection Board held in 1995 and 1996 C 
considered promotion of a Major to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel-Officer 
not empanelled on the basis of overall profile and comparative batch merit-
Statutory complaint for setting aside ACRs of 1988-89 and 1989-90, rejected-
Officer filed writ petition praying that he be assessed afresh by the Selection 
Board and for setting aside ACRs for the years 1988-90-High Court held 
that there was an adverse element in the ACRs of the Officer/or years 1988- D 
90 and 1989-90 and, therefore, he ought to have been given performance 
counseling-Therefore, entry of the ACRfor the year 1988-90 quashed-High 
Court also held that there was down grading which was adverse to the Officer 
and it ought to have been communicated-Correctness of-Held: The standards 
for demonstrated performance in the case of Major, Lieutenant Colonel and E 
Colonel are different-The promotion is virtually on merit-cum-seniority-
There are three stages for communication of adverse and advisory remarks in 
the Confidential Reports-First stage is counseling, second is guidance and 
third is the consequences of the officer failing to show the desired 
improvement-The High Court had clearly overlooked these aspects-Hence, 
matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the grievances of the F 
Officer. 
The respodent was considered for promotion to the rank of 
Lieutenant Colonel by the Selection Board held in 1995 and 1996 and was 
not empanelled on the basis of overall profile and comparative batch merit 
The respondent filed statutory complaint for setting aside the Annual G 
Confidential Reports (ACR) of 1988-89, which were rejected. 
The respondent filed a writ petition praying that he be assessed 
afresh by the Selection Board and for setting aside ACRs for the years 
1988-90. The High Court quashed the entry of the ACR for the year 1988-
385 
II 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 90 holding that there was an adverse element in the ACRs of the 
respondent for the years 1988-90 and 1989-90 and, therefore, the 
respondent ought to have been given perforamnce counseling. The High 
Court also held that there was down grading which was adverse to the 
respondent and it ought to have been communicated. to him. Hence the 
B appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD. 1. The materials on record clearly reveal that the procedure 
for recording of Annual Confidential Record (ACR) has been elaborately 
C provided for. There are different o(ficers involved in the process, they are: 
Initiating Officer, the Superior Reviewing Officer, the First Techincal 
Officer and Higher Technical Officer. The standards for demonstrated 
performance in the case of Major, Lieutenant Colonel and ~olonel are 
different The respondent had filed the writ application making a grievance 
that there were some adverse remarks which were not communicated. The 
D absence of parameters was not specifically highlighted in the writ. petition. 
(391-F-GJ 
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (19961 2 SCC 363 and State 
of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, [1997) 5 SCC 7, held inapplicable.' 
E 
London Graving Dock Co Ltd v. Horton, (1951) AC 737, Home Office 
v. Dorser Yacht Co., [1970) 2 All ER 294 and Herrington v. British Railways 
Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537, referred to. 
2.1. The promotion is virtually on merit-cum-seniority basis. The 
paper on the selection system dated 6-5-1987 elaborately provides the 
F guidelines for assessment. [392-B) 
2.2. In the case of Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, three 
. sets of Demonstrated Performance variables have been provided in the 
ACR forms. These variables correspond to "Regimental and Command 
G Assignments". [393-A) 
H 
3. The modalities provided for recording and communication of 
adverse entries clearly indicate as to in which cases the communication 
of adverse or advisory remarks are to be made. Word "Advisory" is not 
necessarily adverse. (394-A) 
,,.
U.0.1. v. MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 
387 
4. A reading of the instructions clearly indicate that there are A 
different stages: first is the counseling, second is the guidance and third 
are the consequences of the officer failing to show desired improvement. 
Only when an officer fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.