No Straight Jacket Formula/Prescribed Guidelines For Performance Assessment Of Army Officials: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Performance Review

The petitioner, an army officer, had filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to challenge the grades awarded to him in two Confidential Reports (CR). The AFT expunged one CR while upholding the other one. The petitioner sought relief before the High Court with respect to the other CR.

The High Court pointed out, “Interestingly, though the petitioner has levelled allegations against the IO, the RO and even the SRO, but since they being not substantive in nature and rather bald, general and vague, this Court finds no reason to proceed for adjudication thereon.”

The Court explained that the grading of the CR of the petitioner was a result of a policy decision taken by the Army officials after they had devised a specific procedure and after due deliberation. The CR involved the due application of mind by not one, but three officials at three different stages.

A Division Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed, “it is to be borne in mind that the petitioner by way of the present petition, cannot ask this Court to call upon the IO or the RO or the SRO to conduct a de novo grading/ assessment of the CRs of the petitioner, more particularly, as the same are bereft of any material particulars and/or cogent evidence and merely because there is another interpretation possible from that what has been arrived at by the learned AFT.”

Sr. Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the petitioner, while Sr. PC Neeraj appeared for the respondents.

Thus, the Court held that there was no scope of overlap or connection inter se them. The Court declined to meddle or dwell upon the correctness of the CR of the petitioner observing that “Court ought not to generally interfere where such factors are involved.”

The Court stated that merely because the petitioner was graded/ assessed as ‘Outstanding’ in earlier CRs, did not necessarily mean that he ought to be graded/ assessed as the same in the disputes CR.

“Therefore, no judicial review is called for, moreover, since this is not a case falling under the rarest of rare category which calls for such/ any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Court of law,” the Court noted.

The Court agreed with the reasons and findings of the AFT and held that “there is no occasion for the petitioner to be permitted to once again reargue the same facts under the garb of the present petition and call this Court to once again re-adjudicate upon them. The same, as per the settled position of law, is impermissible.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Brig Rohit Mehta v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2025-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Sr. Advocate P.S. Patwalia; Advocates Inder Sen Singh, Abhishek Singh, Nasir Mohd. and Kaberi Sharma

Respondents: Sr. PC Neeraj; Advocates Vedansh Anand, Rudra Paliwal and Mahesh Kumar Rathore

Click here to read/download the Judgment