Case: SURGEON REAR ADMIRAL MANISHA JAIPRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

1. These Appeals arises out of a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal by which the rejection of the statutory complaint filed by the Appellant was upheld. The Appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Lieutenant in the year 1975. She was promoted as a Brigadier on 05.12.2005 and as Rear Admiral/ Major General on 24.11.2007. The Appellant retired as Surgeon Rear Admiral on 31.05.2012. As she was not promoted as Surgeon Vice Admiral, she filed a statutory complaint on 15.07.2010 seeking following reliefsFive ACRs prior to ICR- 2007 be compared with ICR-2007 and ACR-2008.(b) T otal Expunction of ICR – 2007:- If markings in the assessment on a Select Surg Rear Admiral for selection to the next rank of Surg Vice Admiral are inadequate for selection even to the first Select rank of Surg Caption/ Equivalent from the rank of Surg Commander/ Equivalent.(c) T otal Expunction of ACT 2008:- If markings in the assessment on a Select Surg Rear Admiral for selection to the next rank of Surg Vice Admiral are inadequate for selection even to the first Select rank of Surg Captain/ Equivalent from the rank of Surg Commander/ Equivalent.By an order dated 02.09.2011, the statutory complaint was disposed of by giving partial relief to the Appellant which is asBox grading awarded by SRO in ICR 2006, being inconsistent with the pen picture and profile of the officer,(b) Box grading awarded by DGAFMS in ACR 2006, being technically invalid,(c) Numerical grading awarded by IO, RO and FTO in ICR 2007 on grounds of inconsistency with established profile,(d) Numerical grading awarded by SRO, DGMS (Army) and DGAFMS in ACR 2008 on grounds of inconsistency with established profile,(e) Numerical grading awarded by DGAFMS in SCR 2009, being inconsistent, and(f) Entire assessment, including box grading, awarded by DGMS (N) as HOS in SCR 2009, being technically invalid.2. The above-mentioned aberrations be removed from the CR Dossier of the officer and she be reconsidered for promotion, by an appropriate Promotion Board (Medical), in accordance with the existing policy.Dissatisfied with the partial redressal of grievance, the Appellant filed O.A. No.19/ 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai (for short ?the Tribunal?) which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Appellant is before this Court challenging the validity of the said order of the Tribunal.

Court's reasoning:
However, it is provided that an officer of the same rank can also initiate Confidential Reports but will not endorse the recommendation for promotion to the next rank. On a perusal of the record, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellant failed to prove any malice or bias on the part of the officers concerned in recording the Confidential Reports. The overall ratings of the Appellant were found to have been improved. The apprehension of the Appellant that Brigadier G.S. Manchanda could not have graded her correctly was found to be not correct by the Tribunal. The Confidential Report initiated by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda as Initiating Officer as well as F .T.O. was shown to us by learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that no bias can be found in the ACR for the year 2008 which was recorded by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda. The endorsements made by Brigadier G.S. Manchanda as Initiating Officer has been in the range of ‘Outstanding? to ‘Exceptionally Outstanding?. The Confidential Report Dossier of the Appellant would show that the ACR for the year 2008 acknowledges her professional and administrative abilities.Undoubtedly, the statutory complaint was not disposed of within the stipulated period in the aforementioned Regulation. By referring to the Regulation, the Tribunal held that the Appellant did not resort to the remedies that were made available in the above Regulation. Moreover, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellant is not entitled for relief only on the ground of delayed disposal of the statutory complaint. We agree.Though we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the Navy Order (Spl.) 02/ 2009 should not have been made applicable for Confidential Reports which were initiated prior to 01.01.2010, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Tribunal for the following reason: The Confidential Reports for the years 2006 and 2009 along with the grading given to the Appellant have been examined by us. Even if the ACRs of 2006 and 2009 were not technically invalid, the Appellant is not entitled for any relief as she would not have been promoted due to her comparative merit. The Appellant will not stand to gain even if the endorsement made by the reporting officer as head of service for the CRs of 2006 and 2009 are taken from consideration. We are convinced that the Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order (Spl.) 02/ 2009. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation.