O.A. No. 190 of 2009. Case: Brigadier Rajiv Verma Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Number:O.A. No. 190 of 2009
Party Name:Brigadier Rajiv Verma Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Rajiv Manglik, Adv. and For Respondents: R. Balasubramanaian, Adv.
Judges:Manak Mohta, J. (Member (J)) and Z.U. Shah, Member (A)
Issue:Defence Law
Judgement Date:November 29, 2010
Court:Armed Forces Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

(Principal Bench At New Delhi)

  1. The applicant had filed O.A No 190/2009 praying for quashing the orders dated 08/06/2007 rejecting his non statutory complaint (Annexure A-1) and order dated 15/09/2008 rejecting his statutory complaint (Annexure A-2). The applicant has also prayed that the assessment of the SRO in his ACR for the period 10/2005 to 06/2006 be expunged and he be considered by Special No 1 Board as a fresh case for promotion to the rank of Major General and be given all consequential benefits. The applicant was also requested for condonation of delay in submission of his application.

  2. The applicant was commissioned in the Army on 15/12/1976. The applicant avers that during his service he was nominated for important courses like DSSC and LDMC. He is also recipient of the Army Commanders Commendation and COAS Commendation Card. During his service the applicant was promoted to Colonel on 05/05/1997 and Brigadier on 10/10/2005.

  3. The applicant states that on 29/08/2006 he delivered a lecture during a Seminar on Human Rights. On 05/09/2006 his SRO, Army Commander Eastern Command issued a letter of performance counselling as he was dissatisfied with his lecture of 29/08/2006 (Annexure A-6). The applicant gave a suitable reply to the show cause notice (Annexure A-7).

  4. The applicant further states that his ACR for the period 14/10/2005 to 30/06/2006 was endorsed by SRO on 11/09/2006 i.e immediately after the performance counselling given to him on 05/09/2006. The following adverse remarks were endorsed by the SRO "he over plays his qualities of tact and mannerism in order to cover deficiency". These were not communicated to him at the time of endorsement but later on 05/11/2006 after an observation was raised on them by MS Branch, Army Headquarters.

  5. The applicant states that ACRs were required to be initiated and performance be observed as per Army Order 45/2001, Para 118 of which specify that "...the assessment content in the confidential report will be restricted strictly to the performance and potential as observed during the period covered by the report". The applicant contends that since the ACR period was from 15/10/2005 to 30/06/2006 and the adverse remarks pertain to an incident of 29/08/2006 the same were outside the period of assessment and should not have been endorsed in the impugned CR. The applicant also states that the adverse remarks were also given to him without affording any opportunity to him to...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL