UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus COL RAN SINGH DUDEE

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 03-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
v.
COL RAN SINGH DUDEE
(Civil Appeal No. 11009 of 2017)
JULY 03, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Army Act, 1950 – ss. 83, 39(a) – Selection – Selection from
the post of Lt. Colonel to the rank of Colonel – On facts, findings
of General Court Martial against respondent-army officer quashed
– Reinstatement of respondent – Issuance of directions to the
Government for payment of all consequential benefit for the said
period – Thereafter, respondent promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel
and, also granted time scale promotion as Colonel – However, officer
junior to respondent promoted to the rank of Brigadier –Respondent
challenged the same – Selection Board not find the respondent fit,
and was not empanelled – In a subsequent order, Selection Board
did not find respondent fit to be promoted by selection to the post of
Colonel – However, the tribunal found the assessment made by the
Selection Board to be perverse and issued directions to the
Government to constitute a fresh selection Board – Held: While
annulling the findings and effect of the General Court Martial
proceedings, the idea was to confer those benefits which the officer
stood denied directly as a result of pendency of such proceedings –
Such benefits would be those which are easily quantifiable namely
those in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits
– But the expression cannot be construed to mean the promotions
which are strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection
must also stand conferred upon the officer – On facts, Selection
Board considered the matter on merits and found the respondent
unfit for selection as “Colonel” – Assessment was cumulative taking
into account the grading as against those six parameters – Action
on part of the Selection Board in relying upon the entry of reprimand
was consistent with Selection Policy and could not be characterized
as incorrect or illegal in any manner – Also there were other factors
which weighed with the Selection Board – Thus, the tribunal was
wholly unjustified in finding the assessment made by the Selection
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 93
93
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Board to be perverse –Judgments and orders passed by the tribunal
set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While annulling the findings and effect of the
General Court Martial proceedings, the idea was to confer those
benefits which the officer stood denied directly as a result of
pendency of such proceedings. Such benefits would therefore be
those which are easily quantifiable namely those in the nature of
loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits. But the expression
cannot be construed to mean that even promotions which are
strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection must also
stand conferred upon the officer. It is true that as a result of
pendency of the General Court Martial proceedings the
respondent was kept out of service for nearly nine years and as
such his profile would show inadequacy to a certain extent. On
the other hand the Department was also denied of proper
assessment of the profile of the respondent for those years. [Para
6][108-F-H; 109-A]
1.2 The concept that he must be granted those promotions
which his batchmates or juniors received and the idea that he
must also be considered for promotions which are strictly based
on “selection” basis have not been accepted by this Court in
K.D. Gupta case. The tribunal therefore, completely erred in
passing the directions in its order.Since the opinion of the Law
Officer was not consistent with the provisions of the relevant
rules and the law declared by this Court in K.D. Gupta case, the
Department was justified in expressing serious reservations and
in generating note. The tribunal, attached undue importance to
the opinion of the Law Officer.[Para 7][109-F-H; 110-A]
1.3 The matter was considered on merits by Selection
Board which found the respondent unfit for selection as
“Colonel”. The matter was analyzed by the Board on six indicia
or parameters. The assessment was cumulative taking into
account the grading as against those six parameters. Admittedly,
the respondent was lower in terms of indicia Nos.(ii), (iv) and (v)
as against all other three officers, which included one who was
not empanelled at all. Apart therefrom, the entry of reprimand as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
against indicia No.(vi) also put the case of the respondent in the
negative. [Para 8][

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