Quashing the ACRs of a lieutenant colonel who was deputed with the Air Force for the relevant period, the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench observes that the grading system in the Air Force is stricter than that in the Army, a fact that needs to be considered

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held that discrepancies in the numerical grading given to an officer vis-à-vis the pen picture and assessment in his annual confidential report (ACR) by senior officers in the chain of command is a good ground for setting aside the ACR.

Quashing the ACRs of a lieutenant colonel who was deputed with the  Air Force for the relevant period, the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench comprising Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma and Air Marshal Manvendra Singh observed that the grading system in the Air Force is stricter than that in the Army, a fact that needs to be considered.

Lt Col Santosh G Takras had 18 years of service and was one of the few engineer officers with a Masters of Technology in Geotechnical Engineering and was an expert in underground excavations. He was superseded and after his complaints were rejected by the Army, he moved the AFT.

Arguing for the officer, Senior Advocate Gurpreet Singh contended that he had been underrated in the ‘box grading’ as the officer was on deputation with the Air Force and many of the reports were initiated by the Reviewing Officer (RO) and Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO) of the Air Force. 

AirForce

He averred that since the rating system in ACRs by the Air Force is very stringent as compared to the Army, the officer suffered as his inter se merit for promotion has to be considered with his batch mates who are army officers. Therefore, the officer was at a clear disadvantage.

On examination of the ACR for the period August 30, 2011 to February 22, 2012 found that the numerical assessment and box grading by the Initiating Officer (IO) and RO were not consistent with the pen picture.

“Accordingly, though the ACR contained no weak assessment or adverse remarks, it needed to be set aside due to inconsistencies in the box grading, numerical assessment, and pen picture,” the Bench said in its order of July 24.

The Bench further held that another ACR for the period February 1, 2015 to July 11, 2015 also suffered from a mismatch between the numerical assessment, pen picture and the box grading given by the RO and SRO.

“While the performance has been lauded by the RO and SRO, they seem to have held back the box grading due to being conditioned by the ACR rating benchmarks of the IAF,” the Bench remarked.

Stating that the officer had held an extremely challenging appointment, achieved significant documented success and completed important tasks and projects related to the induction of new equipment which deserved to be rated accordingly, the Bench directed that the complete ACRs for the said periods be expunged from the officer’s record, and he be considered for promotion within three months as a ‘Special Review Case’.