- (1.) Petitioner has sought quashing of annual confidential report for the year 1988-89 Annexure P-2, dismissal of non statutory complaint vide Annexure P-10 and of the statutory complaint Annexure P-12 by way of issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. In additions thereto, petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to review his case qua promotion to the rank of Colonel ignoring the annual confidential report and orders Annexure P-10 and P-12.
(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he had unblemished service record till the time one Brig. R.K. Nanawatty took command of his unit for a brief period i.e. from October 18, 1988 to March 24, 1989 and recorded the impugned annual confidential report for the period 1988-89. Earlier to this report and after the year 1988-89 the petitioner has been awarded good reports by various superior officers. This report was written on August 30, 1989 i.e. long after the period prescribed in the instructions for recording of annual confidential reports. As per instructions, the annual confidential report ought to have been recorded by March 25, 1989 which should have reached the Army headquarters by June 10, 1989. This late recording of the annual confidential report itself erdes the credibility of the reporting officer. Not only this, no supporting material has been referred to by the reporting officer. Even the requirement of counselling as envisaged by the rules was not adhered to by the reporting officer. Further challenging the annual confidential report, the petitioner highlighted that he had been given a box grading of 8 on his annual confidential reports for the year 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 and this being the position, it is unreasonable too to accept that such an officer could be rated so low as given in the annual confidential report, Annexure P-2. Remarks in the annual confidential report that he is autocratic, his staff work just average, and his knowledge and application is satisfactory, appears to have been used without the application of mind. In this view of the matter, this solitary adverse report Annexure P-2 loses its significance and ought to have been set aside as sought by the petitioner by filing non statutory complaint as well as statutory complaint. Rejection of these complaints by the concerned authorities and that too by a non speaking order clearly brings out that the entire record of the petitioner was never brought to the notice of the Chief of the Army Staff. This confidential report and rejection of the complaints by the authorities has jeopardised the promotion chances and the career of the petitioner and precisely for this reason his otherwise meritorious record has been brushed aside while examining his case for promotion as Colonel.
(3.) The respondents, as per written statement, has controverted the various averments made by the petitioner. By way of preliminary objection, it has been urged by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable for expunging remark from the annual confidential report. Even otherwise, the non statutory as well as the statutory complaint of the petitioner have already been erected by the Chief of the Army Staff and the Central Government respectively. On merits, it was urged that since Brig R.K. Nanawatty was Brigade Commander of the petitioner from October 1988 to March, 1990. He was his reporting officer and so has recorded his annual confidential report. Defending the annual confidential report, Annexure P-2, the respondents averred that the aim of the confidential report broadly is to have an objective assessment of Officer's professional and personal qualities, his competence and his potential as observed during the period covered by the report. It is the duty of the reporting officer to record his assessment about the over all performance of the officer concerned clearly. The respondents further controverted the averment made by the petitioner that his other annual confidential reports ranged from high average to above average. Defending the confidential report, it was submitted that such a confidential report is reviewed by two or more superior reviewing officers in the chain of reporting. The assessment given by all these reporting officers have to be studied together to form an overall picture of the performance of the officer reported upon for that particular period of reporting. This way the impugned report, in fact, is based upon the objective assessment of the petitioner. As regards the allegation that his claim for promotion has not been considered in view of this adverse report, the respondents denied this assertion of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the name of the petitioner had been considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel thrice by the selection board.;