O.A. 161 of 2009. Case: Brig Ravi Pandalai Vs The Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. 161 of 2009
Party NameBrig Ravi Pandalai Vs The Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Pandey, Adv. and For Respondents: Jyoti Singh, Adv.
JudgesManak Mohta, J. (J) and Z.U. Shah (A), Members
Judgement DateJune 04, 2010
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


Manak Mohta, J. (J) and Z.U. Shah (A), Members, (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. The applicant filed an OA No 161/ 2009 on 24/11/2009 for quashing impugned orders dated 20/8/ 2008 communicating his non empanelment to the rank of Maj Gen and order dated 18/5/2009 rejecting his statutory complaint dated 10/12/ 08.

  2. The applicant has stated that despite having an unblemished service of more than 34 years and top rate performance on several Army courses he was superseded for promotion to the rank of Major General by a special review held in May 2009. The applicant contends that his reviewing officer (RO) harmed him in his reports of 09/94 to 08/ 95 and 11/95 to 08/96. The applicant contends that the respondents have admitted that the assessment of the RO was inconsistent with his overall profile but only gave him relief in the box grading instead of setting aside the assessment in its entirety. The applicant contends that once a box grading is expunged the report cannot be retained because subjectivity and inconsistency cannot be confined to one part of a report.

  3. The applicant contends that the respondents, despite giving him partial redressal by expunging the box grading in the ACR for 09/94 to 08/95, did not consider him afresh for important career courses which has adversely impacted on his career progression.

  4. The applicant states that while he was Commanding Officer 26 RAJPUT his IO, the Brigade Commander, gave him very good reports but the RO, without communicating any adverse remarks, damaged his report. The applicant maintains he realised this when he was not detailed for career courses. The applicant put up a statutory complaint on 31/10/ 1998 by which he was granted partial redress by way of expunction of only the box grading of the RO. In 2001 the applicant, despite subjectivity by RO/ SRO in some reports, was approved for promotion for Brig.

  5. The applicant was considered for promotion to the rank of Maj Gen is Sep 2005 but not empanelled. He submitted a statutory complaint on 7/9/2007 and on 31/12/2007 and was granted redress by expunction of ROs assessment in one of the qualities in the ACR of 07/2003 to 02/2004. In view of this relief the applicant was considered as a special review fresh case but was again not empanelled. The applicant submitted another statutory complaint dated 18/ 12/ 2008 and verily believes that the Govt of India granted him redress by an order of 18/3/2009 and the same was sent to Army HQ...

To continue reading

Request your trial