Supreme Court Directs Expunction Of Biased Entries In Officer's ACRs; Orders Reconsideration For Promotion To Major General

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by Brigadier Sandeep Chaudhary challenging parts of an Armed Forces Tribunal order that had expunged portions of one Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and directed reconsideration for promotion. The appeal concerned whether two successive ACRs, prepared by the same Initiating Officer (IO) and Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO), should both be interfered with after findings of bias in confidential gradings that affected the officer’s empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the Tribunal’s order to extend relief. It held that the Tribunal’s findings of a deliberate discrepancy between the disclosed and undisclosed parts of the ACR, showing an intent to “affect lower figurative ratings intentionally masked from the knowledge of the applicant,” applied to both challenged reports and required expunction of the undisclosed QsAP (Qualities to Assess Potential) entries and box gradings in the earlier ACR as well. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, we direct that the expunction of figurative ratings by IO and RO in QsAPs and Box grading of the ACR for the period 12/17 to 06/18 shall be made. Accordingly, the first impugned order dated 26th April 2023 is modified by granting the aforesaid additional relief while maintaining the relief already granted. Now, reconsideration of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Major General shall be made in terms of the operative part of the first impugned order by taking into consideration the additional relief granted as above. If the appellant has already superannuated, his case for the notional promotion and grant of monetary benefits shall be considered within three months from today.”

Background: Brig. Sandeep Chaudhary was commissioned in 1991 and rose to the rank of Brigadier with distinguished service, including two Vishisht Seva Medals and multiple commendations. He served as Commandant, 3 Advance Base Workshop (Northern Command) and received two ACRs covering 12/2017–06/2018 and 07/2018–06/2019. The appellant complained that the fourth respondent (the IO for both reports) had acted with bias, producing “lukewarm” reports that impaired his competitive grading and led to non-empanelment for promotion in 2021. Statutory and non-statutory complaints were rejected. The appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal, which in its order dated 26 April 2023 expunged figurative ratings and box gradings in the second ACR (07/2018–06/2019) and directed reconsideration for promotion without loss of seniority, but left the first ACR untouched.

The Tribunal scrutinised the ACRs and recorded that while the disclosed pen-picture and visible gradings suggested no downward trend, the confidential portion—unseen by the ratee—contained relatively lower gradings, and the SRO had endorsed the reports despite the discrepancy. The Tribunal found that “the intent of the fourth respondent to affect lower figurative ratings intentionally masked from the knowledge of the applicant” warranted interference in the second ACR. The respondents did not challenge the Tribunal’s factual findings in paragraphs 35–36 of the impugned order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the same reasoning applied to the earlier ACR and directed expunction of the undisclosed QsAP entries and box gradings in the 12/2017–06/2018 report as well, restoring parity in reconsideration. The Court ordered that reconsideration be completed within three months and, if the officer had superannuated, a decision on notional promotion and monetary benefits be taken within three months. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No.4655 of 2023 (2025 INSC 685)
Case Title: Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Counsel for the appellant (name not specified in judgment)
For the Respondent(s): Additional Solicitor General (appeared; name not specified in judgment)