The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has come down heavily on the unfair practices and nepotism in the promotion of Indian Navy officers..In an order rendered today by Justice Virender Singh and Lt. Gen Sanjiv Langar, the AFT imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh on former Vice Admiral PK Chatterjee and also urged the Navy to ensure that circumstances of nepotism do not occur in future..The case involved two applications filed at the principal branch of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Delhi. The applicants had alleged that they were denied their due promotions as a direct consequence of a Senior Ranking Officer (SRO), PK Chatterjee having shown favouritism towards his son-in-law, Captain Agashe by influencing Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of candidates..The complainants submitted that owing to the influence of Chatterjee, his son-in-law was able to secure promotions for which he was not eligible in comparison to other duly qualified officers, including themselves. It was submitted that the overall profile of the applicants was lowered due to the intervention by Chatterjee..In this connection, impropriety was alleged in certain Promotion Boards, the results of which were argued to have been influenced by the actions of the SRO. The natural justice principles embodied in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, were averred to have been violated, considering that the SRO had sat in judgment over a cause he was interested in. It was the applicants’ case that an SRO rendering ACR on his own son-in-law has translated into operative prejudice towards others in the same Promotion Board..Although the applicant submitted a case for the Redressal and Complaint Advisory Board (RECAB), the same was alleged to have been sidetracked by the Chief of Naval Staff.The respondents denied all allegations. It was their case that promotions were based on review of consistent performance by candidates. They argued that the respondent SRO had little role to play in the Promotion Board results. They further contended that slight variations in ACRs do not make a difference in terms of promotion..The tribunal expressed its surprise on the fact that it was never brought to the attention of the authorities that the respondents in question were related to each other during the course of evaluating performance..“It is also surprising to us and disturbing that at no stage over the years has either Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 represented to the system that such a predicament prevails and, indeed, in the discharge of high office, as in the case of Respondent No. 3, he should have procedurally recused himself from initiation of reports on his son-inlaw. Far less, neither Respondent No. 3 nor Respondent No. 4, has ever brought this to the notice of the authorities, be it the Personal Branch or, indeed, the office of various CNCs or the CNSs.”.The tribunal noted that, apart from policy letters and detailed orders, there is no regulation to prevent misuse of relation in such proceedings..The AFT observed that though the RECAB had concurred with the applicant’s views that performance evaluations and other connected matters related to their promotion required review as they were not in consonance with the established norms, yet the same was sent back again to the Personnel Branch by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), which then proceeded to dismiss the conclusion arrived at by the RECAB..The AFT, on scrutinizing available records, concluded that the ACRs of applicants were lowered after the intervention of Chatterjee while the ACR of Captain Agashe rose..“What emerges from the above is that not only has Respondent No. 3 intervened in the case of the applicant and brought down his quantitative assessment convincingly, but he has in the same period steeply upgraded the quantitative assessment of Respondent No. 4, his son-in-law.”.…Suffice it to say that the officer had sufficient merit despite his depleted quantitative profile, which now emerges clearly as an orchestration by his SRO (Respondent No. 3).”.Hence it was found that,.“There is clear mala fide on the part of Respondent No. 3 related to the applicant, which emerges, further aggravated and pronounced by the fact that at the same time, he has consciously upgraded the profile of his son in law (Respondent No. 4) repeatedly, thereby benefiting him, the profile being critical to him, crossing the bar for the rank of Captain.”.On these grounds, the tribunal directed that the assessments made by the Vice Admiral Chatterjee vis-a-vis the CRs of the first applicant be struck down and expunged from the officer’s records, and that his quantified merit be re-calculated properly..Further, taking into account that the complainant officer was pressured to retire prematurely rather than be superseded by others, and given that as a result the Indian Navy lost a highly specialized officer, the tribunal also slammed a heavy fine of Rs. 5, 00, 000 (Rupees Five Lakh) on the errant SRO for his improper conduct..Read judgment below..Image Courtesy: Join Indian Navy
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has come down heavily on the unfair practices and nepotism in the promotion of Indian Navy officers..In an order rendered today by Justice Virender Singh and Lt. Gen Sanjiv Langar, the AFT imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh on former Vice Admiral PK Chatterjee and also urged the Navy to ensure that circumstances of nepotism do not occur in future..The case involved two applications filed at the principal branch of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Delhi. The applicants had alleged that they were denied their due promotions as a direct consequence of a Senior Ranking Officer (SRO), PK Chatterjee having shown favouritism towards his son-in-law, Captain Agashe by influencing Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of candidates..The complainants submitted that owing to the influence of Chatterjee, his son-in-law was able to secure promotions for which he was not eligible in comparison to other duly qualified officers, including themselves. It was submitted that the overall profile of the applicants was lowered due to the intervention by Chatterjee..In this connection, impropriety was alleged in certain Promotion Boards, the results of which were argued to have been influenced by the actions of the SRO. The natural justice principles embodied in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, were averred to have been violated, considering that the SRO had sat in judgment over a cause he was interested in. It was the applicants’ case that an SRO rendering ACR on his own son-in-law has translated into operative prejudice towards others in the same Promotion Board..Although the applicant submitted a case for the Redressal and Complaint Advisory Board (RECAB), the same was alleged to have been sidetracked by the Chief of Naval Staff.The respondents denied all allegations. It was their case that promotions were based on review of consistent performance by candidates. They argued that the respondent SRO had little role to play in the Promotion Board results. They further contended that slight variations in ACRs do not make a difference in terms of promotion..The tribunal expressed its surprise on the fact that it was never brought to the attention of the authorities that the respondents in question were related to each other during the course of evaluating performance..“It is also surprising to us and disturbing that at no stage over the years has either Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 represented to the system that such a predicament prevails and, indeed, in the discharge of high office, as in the case of Respondent No. 3, he should have procedurally recused himself from initiation of reports on his son-inlaw. Far less, neither Respondent No. 3 nor Respondent No. 4, has ever brought this to the notice of the authorities, be it the Personal Branch or, indeed, the office of various CNCs or the CNSs.”.The tribunal noted that, apart from policy letters and detailed orders, there is no regulation to prevent misuse of relation in such proceedings..The AFT observed that though the RECAB had concurred with the applicant’s views that performance evaluations and other connected matters related to their promotion required review as they were not in consonance with the established norms, yet the same was sent back again to the Personnel Branch by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), which then proceeded to dismiss the conclusion arrived at by the RECAB..The AFT, on scrutinizing available records, concluded that the ACRs of applicants were lowered after the intervention of Chatterjee while the ACR of Captain Agashe rose..“What emerges from the above is that not only has Respondent No. 3 intervened in the case of the applicant and brought down his quantitative assessment convincingly, but he has in the same period steeply upgraded the quantitative assessment of Respondent No. 4, his son-in-law.”.…Suffice it to say that the officer had sufficient merit despite his depleted quantitative profile, which now emerges clearly as an orchestration by his SRO (Respondent No. 3).”.Hence it was found that,.“There is clear mala fide on the part of Respondent No. 3 related to the applicant, which emerges, further aggravated and pronounced by the fact that at the same time, he has consciously upgraded the profile of his son in law (Respondent No. 4) repeatedly, thereby benefiting him, the profile being critical to him, crossing the bar for the rank of Captain.”.On these grounds, the tribunal directed that the assessments made by the Vice Admiral Chatterjee vis-a-vis the CRs of the first applicant be struck down and expunged from the officer’s records, and that his quantified merit be re-calculated properly..Further, taking into account that the complainant officer was pressured to retire prematurely rather than be superseded by others, and given that as a result the Indian Navy lost a highly specialized officer, the tribunal also slammed a heavy fine of Rs. 5, 00, 000 (Rupees Five Lakh) on the errant SRO for his improper conduct..Read judgment below..Image Courtesy: Join Indian Navy
![AFTslams nepotism in Indian Navy, imposes 5 lakh fine on retired Vice Admiral [Read order]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2017%2F07%2Fnavy.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
