The SC Course Correction in Assessing Military Bureaucracy: Brigadier's Vindication

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. marks a significant moment in military jurisprudence, particularly in the context of how Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) impact career advancement within the armed forces. At the heart of this case lies a decorated officer’s long-standing grievance with two allegedly biased assessments that derailed his promotion to the rank of Major General.

In siding with the appellant, the Court not only affirms the sanctity of fairness in performance evaluation but also interrogates the silent bureaucratic mechanisms that often obscure transparency and accountability.

Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary, an officer with an exceptional track record including multiple prestigious decorations and leadership in a cutting-edge R&D unit found himself bypassed for promotion following two allegedly biased ACRs.

These reports, issued during his tenure at 3 Advance Base Workshop, appeared to show a stark and unexplained dip in ratings, particularly in segments that were concealed from the officer’s view.

Though initially he obtained partial relief from the Armed Forces Tribunal, which expunged one of the two reports, the inconsistency in reasoning prompted the appellant to challenge the non-expunction of the earlier ACR before the Supreme Court.

What distinguishes this judgment is the Court’s refusal to accept a bifurcated logic applied by the Tribunal. The Armed Forces Tribunal had, in its initial order, directed the expunction of the second ACR (for July 2018–June 2019) on grounds of demonstrable bias, yet left the earlier ACR (for December 2017–June 2018) untouched despite identical patterns of mala fides and the same initiating and senior reviewing officers.

The Court noted that the duality in the Tribunal’s reasoning was unsustainable, especially given the clear finding that lower ratings in the undisclosed portion of the ACRs were intentionally masked from the officer's knowledge a conduct antithetical to the principles of good faith and procedural propriety.

Significantly, the Court underscored that the IO (Initiating Officer) had provided consistent outward ratings in the visible portions of the reports, thereby giving the illusion of stability, while simultaneously reducing the critical, undisclosed ratings.

This tactic not only undermines the transparency expected in assessments but also strategically thwarts the officer's right to timely rebuttal.

The decision thus serves as a rebuke to opaque administrative conduct, and an assertion that objectivity in performance appraisal cannot be sacrificed at the altar of personal grievances or hierarchical discretion.

Moreover, the Court rightly emphasized that the same reasoning which justified the expunction of the second ACR applied squarely to the first one. With the Tribunal having already made a categorical finding about the mala fides involved in the undisclosed entries, the logic demanded a uniform application. By modifying the Tribunal’s order to expunge both ACRs in their relevant portions, the Court restored not just the procedural balance but also the moral legitimacy of the officer’s claims.

The Court’s directive to reconsider the appellant’s promotion, with provisions for notional promotion and monetary benefits if he has already superannuated, reflects a deeper understanding of the career prejudice suffered. It acknowledges not just a procedural lapse, but a substantive injustice that needed redress.

In subjecting the ACR system to judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court has once again acted as the conscience keeper of executive processes, ensuring that the sword of discretion is never wielded without the shield of accountability.