CHENNAI: The Chief of the Western Naval Command has been rapped on the knuckles by the Delhi High Court for irregularities in promotions and for “illegalities and arbitrariness” in reviewing Annual Confidential Reports of a subordinate officer.

In a telling judgement, the Delhi High Court has slammed Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Naval Command, Vice Admiral Anil Chopra, for manipulating Annual Confidential Reports, circumventing the Ministry of Defence, disobeying the Ministry as well as manipulating merit arbitrarily in 2009 – all of this, seemingly to promote an officer of his choice out of turn.

The case pertains to an incident in July 2009 when a Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) of the Coast Guard recommended promotions of three DIGs to IG rank. DIG KPS Raghuvanshi who was eligible for promotion, was overlooked, and DIG KC Pande was promoted instead. DIG KPS Raghuvanshi dragged the Coast Guard to court. Five years later, in September 2014, a divisional bench of the Delhi High Court upheld DIG Raghuvanshi’s case and ordered the Coast Guard to hold another DPC within six weeks and promote DIG Raghuvanshi.

The Order

The Government of India says “Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of government servants are written with a view to adjudge performance every year in the areas of their work, conduct, character and capabilities. The system of writing confidential reports has two main objectives. First and foremost is to improve the performance of the subordinates in their present job. The second is to assess their potentialities and to prepare them for the jobs suitable to their personality.” ACRs are important because promotions and rank of officers are decided based on them.

DIG Raghuvanshi charged the then-Director General of the Coast Guard Anil Chopra (now serving as FOC-in-C, Western Naval Command) with manipulating his ACRs and thereby depriving him of due promotion.

In Raghuvanshi’s ACR review of February 2008 to January 2009, Chopra wrote “The officer has put in a creditable performance at sea. His ship’s accomplishments have been a trifle diluted by a few accidents and incidents. A hard-working dedicated officer, who is articulate and sincere to his profession. Somewhat overassessed by IO. I have maintained the numerical grading of my predecessor.” With this review, Raghuvanshi’s ACR grade of 7.5 was drastically reduced to 7.2.

Normally such an ACR is par for the course. But Raghuvanshi did not agree. “The then DG Anil Chopra did not observe my client for 90 days as the rulebook says,” said Raghuvanshi’s counsel Paramanand. “DG Anil Chopra had not yet completed 90 days in the post. But he over-ruled the existing rules and went ahead to give my client a bad review. As a result my client was overlooked for promotion,” he said.

Chopra had in fact written to the Ministry of Defence asking for permission to amend the existing rules. The amendment he wished for was to conduct reviews of ACRs without having to observe the concerned officers for a minimum of 90 days. “The Ministry denied him permission in April 2009,” said Paramanand. “The then Defence Secretary replied, asking him to stick to the existing rules. These rules cannot be changed without cabinet approval. But Chopra managed to get the Joint Secretary to approve it in June 2009, even after the Defence Secretary rejected the amendment,” he added.

The Delhi High Court slammed the Coast Guard on these points in a September 2014 order. “The records unambiguously support the case of the Petitioner that the existing ACR criteria… was amended clandestinely,” the order said. The Joint Secretary of Defence who approved the amendment in ACR criteria too was not spared by the Court. “Since the said proposal was originally rejected at the level of Defence Secretary, the 'post facto' approval granted by the Joint Secretary… was without any authority and an attempt to ride rough shod over the orders passed by the Defence Secretary,” it said.

Coming down hard on the Coast Guard for not seeking Cabinet approval to amend ACR criteria, the Court said, “Thus clearly the amendments were effected without due deliberation with the concerned Ministry, and even the notings do not reflect that any change was to be made in the ACR criteria.”

Another issue with Chopra’s review of Raghuvanshi’s ACR was regarding the “few accidents and incidents” for which he had awarded lower marks to Raghuvanshi. Raghuvanshi contended that those incidents took place in 2007-08 and that he had already been awarded lower marks in his ACR for that year. “The Coast Guard rules clearly say that ACRs have to be done taking into account the performance of the officer only for that year,” said Paramanand. “To take an incident that happened in the previous year and to reflect it in this year’s ACR amounts to punishing the officer twice for the same mistake. It is against the principles of equality and justice,” he said.

The Delhi High Court took on the then DG Coast Guard Chopra in its order, saying that Chopra had manipulated Raghuvanshi’s ACR and that this resulted in him being “punished twice”. The Court also observed that Chopra’s review “smacks of illegality and arbitrariness.”

The Court then went on to rule that the ACR reviewed by Chopra was itself illegal. “We have also no hesitation in holding that the ACR review of the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2… was both illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be ignored.”

“It is a completely motivated well-designed act to promote someone close to Anil Chopra and to deprive another, my client, who is a legitimate claimant to that promotion,” said Raghuvanshi’s counsel Paramanand. “The Coast Guard was given 6 weeks by the Honourable High Court to hold a review DPC and to award the promotion due to my client. But the Coast Guard has not complied with the order and we have filed a contempt petition which is now posted to January 2015. Even after the order the Coast Guard continues to issue showcause notices for various issues and harasses my client,” he added.

Correcting the Course

Retired Naval Commodore Vasan told The Citizen that this judgement is a wake-up call for the Coast Guard and other such institutions. “Manipulation of ACRs is not something that should be done,” said Vasan. “Some idiosyncrasies do creep into the services, that is unfortunate. And there are corrective mechanisms in place like PARD (Promotion Appraisal Review Board) but if they are not working, then it will affect the morale of officers. If injustice is done, it will also result in lack of credibility and trust in the institution of the Coast Guard,” he said.

Vasan also said that grievance redressal mechanisms within institutions like the Coast Guard needed to be strengthened to prevent repeats of such incidents. “I hope Raghuvanshi gets justice because he deserves it,” said Vasan. “There needs to be systemic correction irrespective of who is heading the institution. Officers should not be running to court every time there is a dispute, because this shows that they do not have faith in the system itself. Right to justice is required but I would rather have the system correct itself so people come to the system instead of running to court,” he said.

“If Raghuvanshi has not got what he feels he should get and if the Court has said he should get his due, then there is nothing else to say,” said another retired Navy officer on condition of anonymity. “The merits and demerits have already been discussed by the court and I do not think the courts will give directions to the Coast Guard or government just like that.”

No response

The Citizen’s email questionnaires to Vice Admiral Anil Chopra as well as to Vice Admiral Anurag Thapliyal, current Director General of the Coast Guard went unanswered, despite reminders for a reaction.

Latest News