New Delhi: An Army colonel has raised doubts over the independence of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), claiming it continues to work under the administrative control of the Union Ministry of Defence (MoD) despite the Supreme Court’s repeated judgments asking the Centre to put an end to the MoD’s control over the AFT.
Colonel Rajbir Singh has made this assertion in an appeal filed before the Supreme Court earlier this month, in which he has challenged the tribunal’s verdict rejecting his petition against the selection board’s decision to not promote him to Brigadier rank. ThePrint has accessed the petition.
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice A.S. Oka heard Singh’s appeal on 11 September and issued notice to the MoD, as well as the officer who was chosen over the petitioner for promotion. The bench permitted Singh’s advocate to mention the matter for hearing once the opposing parties are served with the notice.
Singh’s petition also highlights the delays in AFT’s decision-making process. The tribunal, Singh contended, was under obligation to deliver judgment within a 30-day period, according to the provision of the AFT Act under which the tribunal was established. Under the law, the tribunal was also bound to specify the date of judgment at the time of reserving its verdict.
In Singh’s case, both the legal requirements were not met, claimed the petition. His matter was not heard for 19 months after it was filed, while the judgment was delivered 17 months after the tribunal reserved its verdict.
“The tribunal failed to act in accordance with law and the manner in which his petition has been adjudicated. It speaks volumes about the efficacy and effectiveness of the adjudication process, thereby needing immediate intervention of the top court,” Singh’s appeal in the top court said.
He termed his case as most “unfortunate” and said the “justice delivery system mechanism” in the tribunal has become totally “redundant”.
Also read: ‘Historic Day,’ says Chief Justice as Supreme Court comes under data grid that tracks cases
‘Confidential reports removed’
A 1992 batch officer, Singh has stated in his appeal that he was to be considered for promotion in June 2019. He has alleged that before the selection board was convened, two confidential reports containing positive assessments regarding his service record were removed from his file, without any justification.
Despite the exclusion of the two confidential reports, Singh said he was enlisted as number eight on the merit list. This was due to his good profile, which included his academic qualifications, earned while being in service, and also his professional achievements. He also undertook various assignments outside the Army and all were given to him based on his merits, he claimed.
He also cited six commendation cards received from all three services and being the only officer to have this among the batch of 48 officers who were to be considered by the selection board for promotion.
Since he was ranked eighth in the merit list, Singh claimed, he stood a good chance of promotion as there were eight vacancies at the Brigadier level. He further submitted that according to his quantified merits, he had scored 95 on a scale of 100.
According to the procedure, he was to be allotted Board Member Assessment Marks (BMA) as well and, hence, the officer could not have been ousted from the list of empanelled officers, Singh claimed. Exclusion, he added, could have been only on the grounds of specified negative attributes, none of which were attracted by him.
Yet, Singh was not considered for promotion. Rather, his appeal says, another officer who was ranked much lower to him on the merit list got promoted. According to Singh, he (the other officer) was awarded a higher BMA.
Singh filed a statutory complaint on 9 October, 2019, which was rejected a year later by a one-line order. Meanwhile, Singh moved the AFT in June 2020, which immediately issued a status quo order. It had then observed that the prima facie reasons for awarding a lower BMA to the petitioner were not justified.
However, in August 2020, the tribunal vacated its month-old status quo order and paved the way for promotion of the other officer.
Despite completion of pleadings in the matter, the tribunal did not hear the case, his appeal has claimed. It was finally heard on 14 March last year, after which judgment was reserved. The AFT did not pronounce the judgment within 30 days, as mandated under the law, claims Singh’s petition.
Meanwhile, the MoD issued an order on 23 December last year, informing Singh that he was due to superannuate on 31 October this year. Singh’s appeal mentions that he kept requesting the AFT to deliver the judgment at the earliest, since his retirement age was nearing.
With no headway, Singh filed an application before the tribunal to stay his retirement till the final disposal of his pea. It was only then that the tribunal delivered its judgment on 11 August, 17 months after it was reserved.
The tribunal dismissed the petition, which Singh in his plea before the SC has described as unreasonable.
The tribunal’s judgment notes “the stand of the ministry” and makes no effort to examine Singh’s contention that his confidential reports contained positive assessments regarding his service record. According to him, the tribunal has discarded the past precedents and judgments where facts were strikingly similar to the facts of his case.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Also read: SC tells govt to prep manual on media briefings by police — ‘balance of right to know & fair trial’