10.03.2011
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his non-promotion to the rank of Nb. Sub. The appellant, in person, argued that the ACR for the period October 2006 to September 2007 was initiated without jurisdiction as he had not served the mandatory 90 days under his Initiating Officer. He also argued that for promotion to Naib Subedar the under mentioned criteria is applicable:
(i) Only last five reports will be considered out of which minimum three ACRs must be in the rank of Hav. and in case of short fall rest may be in the rank of Naik.
(ii) At least three out of last five ACRs should be Above Average with a minimum two in the rank of Hav. Remaining should not be less than High Average.
(iii) The indl must have minimum two ACRs on Regt, duty out of which at least one should be Above Average. O.A. No. 126 of 2009 Page 2 of 3
(iv) The Indl should have been recommended for promotion in all the five ACRs. The appellant was fulfilling all the above criteria except Serial No. (ii), in that he did not possess the three required Above Average ACRs. The appellant specifically contested the ACR for the year 2007 (1st October 2006 to 30th September 2007). The appellant stated that during this period he had not served the mandatory 90 days under the Initiating Officer so as to entitle him for an ACR. He argued that between the period 1st October 2006 and 30th September 2007 he had only served for a period of 67 days under the Initiating Officer and, therefore, the Initiating Officer had no authority to initiate any report on him. The appellant, therefore, prayed that this ACR be set aside and his promotion board to Nb. Sub. be held at the earliest and he be put through this promotion board after expunging the report of 2007. The respondents accepted the fact that from 21st march to 30th September 2007, the appellant was working with Station Headquarter, Rajouri. However, they argued that no formal attachment order or posting to this effect was issued by the Records Office of the Corps of Signals and that during this entire period i.e. 21st March to 30th September 2007 he was still on the strength of his unit i.e. 39 Mountain Division Signal Regiment. Therefore, while he may have been performing duties at Station Headquarters Rajouri, he continued to be under the command and control of his parent unit. It was also urged by respondents that prior to initiating the ACR, the appellant had himself handed over the ACR form duly signed by him to the Initiating Officer, thereby accepting the fact that he had served for 90 days under the Initiating Officer. O.A. No. 126 of 2009 Page 3 of 3
2. Notwithstanding the different perceptions as given above, it is an accepted fact by both parties that the appellant was working with Station Headquarter Rajouri from 21st March to 30th September 2007. While during this period he may have been on the strength of his parent unit i.e. 39 Mountain Division Signal Regiment, but he was not physically present in the unit. Furthermore his performance at Station Headquarter Rajouri could not be assessed by the Initiating Officer or Reviewing Officer of 39 Mountain Division Signal Regiment. Therefore, the period 21st March to 30th September 2007 cannot be considered as served under the Initiating Officer. For the remaining period of the ACR i.e. 1st October 2006 to 20th March 2007 the appellant has not served the mandatory 90 days under the Initiating Officer. Accordingly we have no hesitation in setting aside the ACR for the period 1st October 2006 to 30th September 2007.
3. We, therefore, direct that the impugned ACR for the year 2007 be set aside and the appellant be put through the requisite promotion board for Nb. Sub. in accordance with the rules. To this extent the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. A.K. MATHUR (Chairperson) S.S. DHILLON (Member) New Delhi March 10, 2011