The CRs, also known as Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), are the primary and definitive performance appraisal documents in the Indian Army. They assess an individual’s character, leadership qualities, and professional competence. These reports directly dictate an officer’s career trajectory, including promotions, postings, and selection for prestigious assignments and courses.

The bench Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan noted

The order added that the entries in the CRs, having been filled and signed by the petitioner himself, cannot be disregarded when the accountability for furnishing details and authenticating data was fixed upon the petitioner/ratee himself.

Highlighting that in matters relating to assessment of performance, confidential reports, empanelment and comparative merit evaluation, the order said that this court would be slow to substitute its own view for that of expert authorities and the specialised tribunal.

Army officer’s case and his confidential reports

The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Army presently holding the rank of lieutenant colonel and was commissioned in the Army in 2001. He has filed the plea against the 2024 AFT order, in which he was challenging his CRs for the period of 2010 to 2011. He sought the expunction of three CRs, alleging they were technically invalid.

He submitted that during 2010, he was incorrectly reflected as a colonel in the Army, while he was then a major. He argued that he was attending a pre-staff course during the reporting period and could not have taken over the appointment.

Regarding the 2011 CR, the petitioner claimed that though the CR was sent to the Senior Ranking Officer (SRO), who endorsed the remark of “inadequate knowledge”, the same resulted in the CR being a “One Man Report”, rendering the same technically invalid.

He alleged that his non-selection for promotion to the rank of Colonel by the selection board was a direct result of these “technically invalid” reports.

Court’s findings

• This court does not act as an appellate authority over decisions of expert bodies or the Armed Forces Tribunal.
• Interference is warranted only where there is manifest illegality, perversity, violation of statutory provisions, or breach of principles of natural justice.
• The principal grievance of the petitioner relates to the alleged technical invalidity of the CRs, which was raised before the tribunal as well, and a perusal of the order shows that the learned tribunal has examined these contentions in detail and has returned findings on each aspect.
• The record reflects that even the paramount cards and the complete service records of the petitioner, as compiled annually and duly authenticated by him, have been maintained in the CR dossier in accordance with the policy prescribed by the Army.
• Consequently, any discrepancies, if at all, between the actual appointments held and those reflected in the strength returns, as recorded in the impugned CRs, ought to have been raised and contested by him at the time of signing the relevant certifications.

• Notably, no such representation has been placed on record, and the same reflects that he had affirmed the correctness of the data in the CR form and his appointment as Coy. Commander.
• Apart from a bald averment of absence, no proof of duress or forgery has been furnished by the petitioner.
• Even otherwise, if the case of the petitioner is taken at the highest, he has not been able to rebut the stance of the respondents that the CR form (CR for the 2010) “Record of Service (Change in Year)” reflects that the petitioner held the appointment of Coy. Commander and bears the signatures and endorsement of the Petitioner on January 31, 2011.

‘He functioned in capacity of Compony Commander without any demur’

• It is further noteworthy that the petitioner had, at the relevant time, accepted and functioned in the capacity of Coy Commander without any demur and had availed the authority and position attached thereto.
• He had filed non-statutory complaints even before the empanelment process, but he never questioned the validity of the CRs of 2010, and it is only after his non-empanelment that he has sought to challenge his very appointment on technical grounds.
• This court is in agreement with the view taken by the tribunal that the Petitioner, having accepted the position and acted thereunder, cannot now be permitted to question its validity solely to challenge CRs, and he should have contested the same while signing the CRs and endorsing the same.
• It has been observed that, in the context of the armed forces, deployment of officers and personnel is an inherent exigency of service, and continuous or frequent physical interaction with the inquiry officer is neither practicable nor a prerequisite for fair evaluation.
• The mere absence of the petitioner from headquarters, therefore, cannot be accepted as a valid justification for attributing any alleged procedural infirmity or for questioning the assessment made during the inquiry.