Case details

Court: Armed Forces Tribunal · Regional Bench, Guwahati
Decided: 28 September 2026
Case number: OA 11 of 2020
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Armed Forces Tribunal

Judgment & Order dated 28 Sep 2026 OA-11 of 2020 on 28 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL**

**REGIONAL BENCH: GUWAHATI**

**O.A. 11 of 2020**

Hav/Opr Rishi Kesh Kumar

... Applicant

Versus

Union of India and Ors.

... Respondents

For Applicant : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.P.J.Barman, CGSC

**CORAM**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, MEMBER (J)**

**HON'BLE LT GEN C.P.MOHANTY, MEMBER (A)**

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying for the following relief(s) :- ***8.1. Direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicant to promote the applicant to the rank of Naib Subedar/Opr as per his seniority by expunging the adverse entry and no opportunity was granted to upgrade his ACR.***

***8.2. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the promotion of the applicant to the rank of Naib Subedar/ Opr as per his seniority.***

***8.3. Set aside the impugned action of the respondent by which the name of the applicant has not been recommended by the annual unit promotion board due to the lacking of ACR's which is against the principle of service jurisprudence as well as against the established law.***

***8.4. The cost of the Application.***

***8.5. Any other relief(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper"***

2. The brief facts of the case is that the Applicant joined service on 04.02.2000 as Sepoy/Opr and has rendered over 20 years of unblemished service, earning promotions by seniority up to senior-most Havildar/Opr (Hav/Opr). However, the Annual Unit Promotion Board (November 2019) did not recommend him for promotion to Naib Subedar/Opr (Nb Sub/Opr). The Applicant's representation against this was rejected by Respondent No. 4 vide letters dated 15.01.2020 and 18.01.2020, citing non-fulfilment of confidential ACR criteria under Arty Records Instructions (ARI) 2019, while stating he is not permanently debarred from future boards.

3. As per the applicant, the non-communication of adverse entries in an ACR used to deprive an employee of service benefits violates settled service jurisprudence and is bad in law. As the Applicant was never communicated any adverse ACR remarks, the impugned rejection is arbitrary and liable to be quashed, necessitating this Original Application.

**Submissions of behalf of the Applicant**

4. The applicant submits that it is a settled principle of law that every ACR entry must be communicated to the employee concerned, and reliance on non-communicated ACRs is legally impermissible. As no adverse ACR was ever communicated to the Applicant, taking the same into account to deny his promotion to Nb Sub/Opr, is vitiated in law.

5. It is submitted by the applicant that the impugned rejection orders, letter No. Q/318102/02/A dated 15.01.2020 issued by Major, Battery Commander, 1062 Medium Battery and Letter No. CF/7781108/CF/A dated 18.01.2020, have been passed whimsically, arbitrarily, and in clear violation of established service jurisprudence. Applicant submits that any ACR entry depriving an employee of a service benefit is deemed adverse and must be formally communicated to afford an opportunity for representation/upgradation. The Respondents denied the Applicant promotion solely due to deficient ACR grading without affording him an opportunity to seek upgradation, thereby infringing upon his legitimate right to fair consideration for promotion to Naib Subedar.

6. In support of his case, the applicant has relied upon a Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi passed in OA NO. 61 of 2015 dated 28th January, 2015, wherein the Hon'ble AFT, Kochi Bench has held that non communication of grading average has a direct impact over the promotion prospects of the applicant and same was not justified.

**Submission on behalf of the Respondents**

7. *Per Contra*, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that under the governing policy (Para 54 of AO 1/2002/MP), the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of JCOs/NCOs are classified and privileged documents required to be handled strictly in terms of the instructions for "Handling of Classified Documents." The Battery Commander acted strictly within the four corners of this existing policy.

8. Respondents submits that as per Para 31 of Army Order 2002, only adverse entries (graded as 'Low Average' and below) are required to be communicated to the individual. Since none of the Applicant's ACRs over the preceding five years contained any adverse remarks meeting this threshold, no communication was warranted under the applicable rules. Respondents further submit that the allegation of discrimination or bias is wholly unfounded. Across his service spanning 15 years, the Applicant's assessments have remained remarkably consistent, having been graded "High Average" or below in 14 out of 15 ACRs initiated across multiple units and by different reporting officers, which accurately and objectively reflects his overall performance.

9. As per the respondents, the applicant has suffered no prejudice or denial of financial benefits. He was duly granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the rank of Naib Subedar w.e.f. 30.12.2018 vide 106 Med Regt Pt II Order dated 11.01.2019, and is drawing pay equivalent to that of a Naib Subedar without incurring any pecuniary loss.

10. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that, in terms of the promotion policy issued by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Army) vide Letter No. A/33513/AG/PS-2(c) dated 10 October 1997, for promotion to the rank of Nb Sub, the last five Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are required to be taken into consideration, out of which at least three reports must have been earned in the rank of Hav and, in the event of any shortfall, the remaining report(s) may be from the rank of Naik (Nk); at least three out of the five reports should be graded "Above Average", with a minimum of two such reports having been earned in the rank of Hav, while the remaining reports should not be below "High Average"; a minimum of two Regimental Reports are required, out of which at least one should be graded "Above Average", and one of such Regimental Reports should have been earned in the rank of Hav; and the individual must have been recommended for promotion in all the five reports.

11. It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant earned six Regimental Confidential Reports (CRs) in the rank of Hav during the period from 2015 to 2019. Out of these reports, the applicant was graded "High Average" for the years 2015 to 2018, whereas he was graded "Above Average" in the year 2019.

**Consideration**

12. We have perused the records and the CR Dossiers produced before us in original by Artillery Records, Nasik. In addition to CR dossiers, the respondents have also produced before us the proceedings of the Annual Unit Promotion Board for promotion to the Hav to Nb Sub in case of the applicant's unit namely 106 Medium Regiment, C/o 99 APO.

13. It is evident from the records that the applicant was considered for promotion during the period from 2018 to 2023 in accordance with the extant policy, and the CRs falling within his reckonable profile were duly taken into consideration. As per the promotion policy dated 10.10.1997, the reckonable period of the applicant's CRs extends from 2014 to 2023. Further, in terms of the policy governing the criteria for promotion, issued vide A.O. 06/2021/AG/MP dated 01.10.2021, the respondents are required to communicate to the individual any grading of "4" or below, as well as any adverse remarks, if recorded. The said policy further stipulates that, for promotion to the rank of Nb Sub, a candidate must have at least three "Above Average" CRs and two "High Average" CRs. Upon examination of the CR records of the applicant, it is found that he did not meet the prescribed criteria for promotion. It is also apparent from the records that no adverse remark, weak remark, or grading of "4" or below was recorded in the relevant CRs. Consequently, there was no requirement for communication of any such adverse or below-threshold grading to the applicant. The details of the CR gradings are set out hereinbelow:

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Sl.No.</th> <th>CR Period</th> <th>IO</th> <th>RO</th> <th>Weak Remark</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>01</td> <td>01.10.2022 to 30.09.2023</td> <td>06</td> <td>05</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>02</td> <td>01.10.2021 to 01.10.2022</td> <td>06</td> <td>06</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>03</td> <td>01.10.2020 to 30.09.2021</td> <td>07</td> <td>07</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>04</td> <td>01.10.2019 to 30.09.2020</td> <td>06</td> <td>06</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>05</td> <td>01.10.2018 to 30.09.2019</td> <td>06</td> <td>07</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>06</td> <td>01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018</td> <td>05</td> <td>06</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>07</td> <td>01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017</td> <td>07</td> <td>06</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>08</td> <td>01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016</td> <td>06</td> <td>05</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>09</td> <td>01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015</td> <td>05</td> <td>05</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>01.10.2013 to 30.09.2014</td> <td>05</td> <td>05</td> <td>Nil</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

14. It is evident from the documents placed on record by the Respondents that the Applicant retired from service on 29.02.2024. Prior to his retirement, the Applicant was considered by at least five Promotion Boards. Upon a careful examination of the relevant Confidential Reports (CRs), it is observed that, except for the CR for the period from 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2021, wherein both the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) had awarded him a grading of 7, denoting "Above Average", and the CR for the period from 01.10.2018 to 30.09.2019, wherein the RO had awarded him a grading of 7, as also the CR for the period from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017, wherein the IO had awarded him a grading of 7, the Applicant was otherwise consistently assessed as "High Average" in the remaining CRs.

15. It is further evident that during the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2023, the Applicant earned at least ten CRs, and his overall performance therein was consistently assessed in the "High Average" category. There is also no material on record to establish that any adverse remarks were recorded against the Applicant and were required to be communicated to him, as alleged by him.

16. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we find no ground to interfere with the assessment made by the Promotion Boards and have no hesitation in holding that the Applicant did not meet the prescribed minimum CR criteria for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar (Nb Sub). The reliance placed by the Applicant upon the judgment/order passed by the Regional Bench, Kochi of this Tribunal in ***Hav (MP) Bopaiah GP v. [Respondents]***, in ***OA No. 61 of 2015***, is of no assistance to his case. The said decision was rendered in the facts and circumstances obtaining therein, which are materially distinguishable from those prevailing in the present case. Consequently, the Applicant cannot derive any benefit from the said decision.

17. Accordingly, we find no merit in the case of the applicant seeking promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar. The application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly **dismissed**.

18. No order as to costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed off.

Pronounced in the open Court on 28th day of September, 2026.

**(UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA)** **MEMBER (J)**

**(LT GEN C.P MOHANTY)** **MEMBER (A)**

**ORDER**

ORDER