AFT faults Air Chief’s assessment in promotion to Air Marshal

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 18

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has faulted the annual assessments done by the then Chief of Air Staff in his capacity as the senior reviewing officer (SRO) in the case of an Air Vice-Marshal who was not promoted to the rank of Air Marshal.

“The review carried out in respect of the petitioner by the SRO in the seven annual reports (ARs) from October 1, 2009, to November 30, 2010, was bad in law,” the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Sunil Hali and Air Marshal JN Burma said in its judgement delivered on Monday.

Air Vice-Marshal Sanjay Sharma, Deputy Senior Maintenance Staff Officer at Headquarters-Maintenance, had alleged that his annual reports (ARs) were deliberately moderated by Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne and thereby he was brought down in merit vis-a-vis other officers who were considered for promotion. He had averred that ACM Browne, who had in December 2013 chaired the Special Promotion Board for the year 2014-15, had differences with him on official matters.

The Bench has directed the Ministry of Defence and Air Force to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotions after deleting the review carried out by the SRO and in case he makes the grade, he would be deemed to have been promoted to the rank of Air Marshal in the relevant Board and will be entitled to all consequential service benefits.

The Bench observed that in the case of the petitioner, seven ARs out of nine were moderated downwards by the SRO, whereas the number of ARs moderated downwards by the SRO in case of other officers was lower.

“Though downward review/moderation has been the norm in the case of the petitioner, not a word has been written in any form by the SRO giving the reasons for doing so. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the action of the SRO in violating the policy of “reasons for doing so must be adequately brought out in narrative form in the remarks column” in our opinion is tantamount to the process in reaching the decision being vitiated since the same has not been observed correctly,” the Bench said.

“Since the reasonableness of the moderation, which has directly affected the scope for fair consideration for promotion in respect of the petitioner is in doubt and the process has been flouted in the absence of any justification whatsoever by the SRO, the benefit of the doubt will go to the petitioner,” the Bench ruled.