Supreme Court Orders Expunction of ACR Ratings in Promotion Case: Brig Sandeep Chaudhary vs. Union of India (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 14, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 685

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can biased performance reviews affect a military officer’s promotion? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue in the case of Brig Sandeep Chaudhary vs. Union of India. The court examined whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was justified in partially setting aside an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and directed the reconsideration of the appellant’s promotion to the rank of Major General.

Case Background

Brig Sandeep Chaudhary, the appellant, was commissioned as a Lieutenant on December 14, 1991, after completing training at the Indian Military Academy. He served in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (EME) and held various operational staff positions. Over time, he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and undertook several courses, earning instructional gradings in all graded courses. He was also selected for the United Nations Mission and received the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) twice.

On December 8, 2017, Brig Chaudhary was posted as a Commandant at 3 Advance Base Workshop in the Northern Command. During his tenure, he received two Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from the fourth respondent, covering the periods from December 2017 to June 2018 and from July 2018 to June 2019. Brig Chaudhary contended that the fourth respondent gave lukewarm reports due to bias against him.

Prior to these ACRs, Brig Chaudhary was at the top of his batch based on his performance and awards. On November 5, 2019, he submitted a statutory complaint, arguing that he was unfairly not nominated for the NDC/APPA course. This complaint was rejected, as was a second statutory complaint. In June/July 2021, he was considered for promotion to the rank of Major General but was not empanelled, leading him to file a non-statutory complaint on August 5, 2021, which was also rejected on January 19, 2022.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the rejection of his non-statutory complaint, Brig Chaudhary filed Original Application No. 125/2022 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. He sought the following reliefs:

1. To call for complete ACRs and set aside the assessment of the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reviewing Officer (RO) in the ACR for the periods December 2017 to June 2018 and July 2018 to June 2019.
2. To call for the records and set aside the result of the No.1 Selection Board that considered him for the rank of Major General.

On April 26, 2023, the Tribunal granted partial relief, directing the expunction of figurative ratings by the IO and RO in Qualities to Assess Potential (QsAPs) and Box gradings of the ACR for the period from July 2018 to June 2019. The Tribunal also directed reconsideration of Brig Chaudhary’s promotion to the rank of Major General within three months, without any loss of seniority.

Brig Chaudhary then filed Misc. App. No. 2094/2023 in O.A. No. 125/2022, seeking leave to file an appeal against the Tribunal’s order before the Supreme Court. However, this application was rejected on May 25, 2023.

Legal Framework

The assessment of officers in the Indian Army through Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is regulated by Army Order bearing AO No.02/2016/MS. This order provides guidelines for giving numeric gradings from one to nine and includes a pen picture of the officer by three different officers. The assessment process involves three officers:

• Initiating Officer (IO)
• Reviewing Officer (RO)
• Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO)

Assessments are made using numeric values, ranging from nine to one, where a numerical value of 9 is considered ‘outstanding’ and a value of 7 or 8 is treated as ‘above average.’

Part I of the ACR consists of personal data, service record, and authentication of data. Part II includes personal and demonstrated performance, covering personal qualities and demonstrated performance variables such as administrative acumen, motivation, development of subordinates, emotional stability, and physical fitness. The IO and RO make assessments in this part.

Part III focuses on the potential for promotion, assessing qualities such as professional competence, vision and conceptual ability, selflessness, integrity, and tolerance for ambiguity. This assessment is made by the IO, RO, and SRO. The last portion of Part III is the Box grading, which is not shown to the officer.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that Brig Chaudhary’s performance had consistently been “beyond excellent,” as evidenced by the numerous medals and awards conferred upon him.
• He pointed out that there was evidence on record, including statements from officers, indicating bias on the part of the fourth respondent towards the appellant.
• The counsel highlighted that while the Tribunal had partially set aside the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19), it had not interfered with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18), even though the basis for both ACRs was the same.
• He drew attention to the Tribunal’s finding that entries in the undisclosed portion of the second ACR showed the fourth respondent’s intent to intentionally affect lower figurative ratings, masked from the appellant’s knowledge.
• The counsel argued that the fourth respondent had “intelligently brought down merit” in the first ACR and had a biased and premeditated intent against the appellant.
• He noted that the appellant was graded ‘outstanding’ by the same IO in the first ACR, and the competitive rating was lowered despite an overall Box grading of 9.
• The counsel also pointed out that both ACRs were written beyond the permitted time.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that the Tribunal had provided cogent reasons for not interfering with the first ACR.
• The ASG argued that the Tribunal expunged the second ACR because the assessment was found to be biased and premeditated.
• The ASG pointed out that the assessment of officers through ACRs is regulated by Army Order AO No.02/2016/MS, which provides for numeric gradings from one to nine and a pen picture of the officer by three different officers.
• The ASG stated that the statutory and non-statutory complaints made by the appellant were properly considered and disposed of.
• The ASG relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors (2008) 8 SCC 725.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the provided document. However, the primary issue before the Court was whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) erred in its orders, specifically:

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in partially setting aside the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19) while not interfering with the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18).
2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision to reject the application for leave to appeal against its first order was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors (2008) 8 SCC 725 – Cited by the respondent.
• Army Order bearing AO No.02/2016/MS – Explained the assessment process through ACRs.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Bias in ACRs: The court emphasized that the intent to affect lower ratings was evident in both ACRs, indicating a clear bias on the part of the IO.
• Consistency of Reasoning: The court noted that the Tribunal’s reasoning for expunging the second ACR was equally applicable to the first ACR, and therefore, both should be treated similarly.
• Fairness and Justice: The court aimed to ensure fairness and justice in the assessment process, preventing any potential prejudice to the appellant’s career progression.

Logical Reasoning

The court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Issue: Whether the Tribunal erred in its orders regarding the ACRs.

↓

Step 1: Examination of the Tribunal’s findings on the second ACR (07/18 to 06/19).

↓

Step 2: Tribunal found bias and premeditation in the assessment of the second ACR.

↓

Step 3: Assessment of whether the same reasoning applies to the first ACR (12/17 to 06/18).

↓

Step 4: Court found that the intent to affect lower ratings was evident in both ACRs.

↓

Step 5: Conclusion: The Tribunal’s reasoning for expunging the second ACR is equally applicable to the first ACR.

↓

Final Decision: The Supreme Court modified the Tribunal’s order to direct expunction of figurative ratings in the first ACR.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Impartiality: ACRs must be free from bias and personal grudges to ensure fair assessment of officers.
• Consistency in Assessment: If bias is found in one ACR, similar ACRs by the same officers should also be scrutinized.
• Protection of Career Progression: Courts will intervene to protect the career progression of officers if there is evidence of biased assessments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• Expunction of figurative ratings by IO and RO in QsAPs and Box grading of the ACR for the period 12/17 to 06/18.
• Reconsideration of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Major General, taking into consideration the additional relief granted.
• If the appellant has already superannuated, his case for notional promotion and grant of monetary benefits shall be considered within three months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if there is evidence of bias in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR), the court can direct the expunction of figurative ratings to ensure fair consideration for promotion. This decision reinforces the importance of impartiality and fairness in performance assessments within the armed forces.

Conclusion

In Brig Sandeep Chaudhary vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the expunction of figurative ratings in the first ACR, emphasizing the need for impartiality and fairness in performance assessments. The court’s decision ensures that Brig Chaudhary’s case for promotion to the rank of Major General will be reconsidered without the influence of biased assessments.