Arbitrary Downgrading Of Military CRs Without Cogent Reasoning Violates Procedural Guidelines: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur partially allowed a petition challenging biased Confidential Reports (CRs) of an Army officer. The court found that the downgrading of Brigadier Gopal Mohan Atri's ratings by superior officers was arbitrary and inconsistent with his service record. Emphasizing the need for objective evaluation in military personnel assessments, the court ordered the expunction of certain CR ratings and restored his original “Outstanding” assessment, noting that deviations in ratings must be supported by cogent reasoning and should maintain consistency with military guidelines.
Background
Brigadier Gopal Mohan Atri rose through the ranks with an exemplary service record. Despite which, he was twice denied nomination to the National Defence College (NDC) and was also not empaneled for promotion to the rank of Major General. The denial was primarily attributed to three disputed CRs covering April–August 2009, July 2018–June 2019, and July 2020–February 2021. These were downgraded by his superior officers, affecting his comparative merit among peers. Atri argued that said downgrades were arbitrary and unjustified, and undermined his prospects despite a consistent record of “Outstanding” performance.
Arguments
Atri contended that military personnel evaluations, especially for CRs, should be based on objectivity and consistency. Atri's previous CRs reflected “Outstanding” ratings, and the downgrades in question lacked adequate reasoning. Highlighting his accolades, including his command of the “Best Unit,” the counsel argued that the RO and SRO's subjective downgrades in the contested CRs directly harmed Atri's career progression. The expunction of only partial ratings rather than addressing all inconsistencies further indicated procedural irregularity by the respondents. Atri sought a complete review and requested an expunction of the ratings affecting his CRs in these periods.
On behalf of the Union, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, argued that the petitioner's ratings were independently assessed by the IO, RO, and SRO. They all brought impartial assessments to Atri's performance. He argued that the High Court should refrain from functioning as an appellate authority in military matters (unless a clear violation of rules or demonstrated bias was evident). Thus, they argued, Atri's denial of promotion and NDC nomination resulted from his comparative ranking rather than any arbitrariness.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court reviewed the April–August 2009 CR. It held that its power of judicial review does not extend to re-assess a Force personnel and to overrule the assessment made by a Competent Authority in the matter of recording of CRs; since, the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Competent Authority. Thus, the court noted that the first Impugned CR for the period from April – August, 2009 does not exhibit any “inconsistency” or “subjectivity” and therefore refused to interfere with the April–August 2009 CR.
Secondly, the court examined the July 2018–June 2019 CR, where the RO's box grading had been expunged by the Army as subjective and inconsistent. The respondents, however, retained the RO's figurative assessments, creating a discrepancy between the overall grading and the individual ratings. According to the court, the Army's decision to expunge only the box grading, while maintaining the figurative assessments, was contradictory, as the guidelines for military CRs require a harmonious assessment that does not mix objective and subjective criteria (paragraph 42). The court emphasized that if one part of the assessment is found to be arbitrary, the entire evaluation should be reconsidered. Thus, making it necessary to expunge all ratings by the RO for this period.
Lastly, for the July 2020–February 2021 CR, the court scrutinized the internal assessment process. Atri's CR had received a “near-perfect nine” rating, which, per internal guidelines, triggered an assessment for “inflationary” ratings. Further, the petitioner's CR was separated out for a detailed internal examination due to some “Assessment Variations”. For this purpose, his CR average variation as compared with past Overall Average Profile was considered. However, the other relevant factors mentioned in the guidelines for analysing the 'assessment validity' were not considered. Thus, the IA was not carried out as per the guidelines, and had only considered a single criterion as opposed to other parameters, such as consistency with his pen picture and previous achievements. Consequently, the court ruled that the expunction of this CR as “inflationary” was unjustified and restored the original ratings provided by the IO. To this extent, petition was thus partly allowed, with the court providing relief by setting aside specific portions of the disputed CRs.
Date: 24/10/2024
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15281/2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manish Sangwan and Mr. Ashwani Tehlan.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday.