HOW DOES THE GRADING IN THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT (CR) AFFECT THE CHANCES OF PROMOTION IN THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES?

How does The Grading in the Confidential Report (CR) affect the Chances Of Promotion In The Indian Armed Forces?

INTRODUCTION

At the outset, it is imperative to mention here that promotion is an incident of service, and the right of an employee to be considered for promotion and subsequent promotion on being found fit has been elevated to the level of a fundamental right within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

In the Indian Armed Forces (Army, Navy, and Air Force), the Confidential Report (“CR”) or the Annual Confidential Report (“ACR”) plays an important role in the grant of promotion to officers. An ACR, as its name suggests, is a confidential document. It contains information about the character, capability, and other attributes of the official reported upon.

There are instances in the Indian Armed Forces wherein the officers/JCOs were denied promotion based on the negative marking by a senior officer in their ACR. Despite having a stellar and unblemished service record, many officers failed to get the promotion due to various odd reasons, such as grudges carried out by the evaluator, who necessarily happens to be the senior officer. Mostly, it is seen that the Initiating officer (“IO’) for the CR shies away from grading officers objectively, and consequently, those officers/JCOs who have not been graded objectively by the IO fail to get the promotion.

Supreme Court (SC), High Courts (HC), and the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs) in their catena of judgments very pertinently highlighted that deliberate assignment of lower grades in the CR by the IO is nothing but a tactic that masks bias and contravenes the principles of transparency and such arbitrary assessments, especially when concealed from the officer, undermine fairness in career progression.

This Article explores the significant role of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer/JCO in the grant of promotion and how the low grading by the Initiating Officer (IO) affects the chances of promotion of an officer despite having an unblemished service record. Furthermore, it also explores the role of the Court and Tribunals in adjudicating such disputes through their judicial pronouncements.

What is an ACR?

As stated above, an ACR is a confidential document that contains information about the character, capability, and other attributes of the official reported upon. Part-I of the ACR consists of personal data, service record, and authentication of data.

Part-II consists of personal and demonstrated performance, which consists of personal qualities and demonstrated performance variables. The personal qualities and demonstrated performance qualities include administrative acumen, motivation, development of subordinates, emotional stability, understanding viewpoints, foresight and understanding, loyalty and respect, judicious delegation, boldness, physical fitness, and fluency in expression. The assessment is to be made by the IO and RO. The rating is given on a scale of nine to one. Then, there are pen pictures by the IO, RO, and SRO. The pen pictures by RO and the SRO are not to be shown to the officer.

Part III consists of the potential for promotion, which is to be shown to the officer reported upon. The Qualities to Assess Potential are termed as ‘QsAP’. There are five QsAPs. They are professional competence, vision and conceptual ability, selflessness and setting of personal example, integrity and moral courage, and tolerance for ambiguity. The assessment is to be made by the IO, RO, and SRO. The last portion of Part III is the Box grading given by the IO, RO, and SRO. This part is not to be shown to the officer. Numerical values from 9 to 1 are used for assessment. The numerical value of 9 is stated as ‘outstanding’, and the numerical value of 7 or 8 is treated as ‘above average’. In this way, the ACR of an individual is prepared.

Now, it is clear that the IO, RO, and SRO play an important role in the Box Grading. There remain high chances that any one out of IO, RO, and SRO may nurse a grudge against the officer and intelligently bring down merit in the ACR. There are cases wherein it is pointed out that initially, the officers were graded ‘outstanding’ by the IO, but suddenly there appears to be a large flair of any odd digits in the ACR, which brings down the merit.

Promotion As A Fundamental Right

The Right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion, and if found fit to be promoted, is a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The guarantee of fair consideration in matters of promotion and subsequent promotion on being found fit under Article 16 virtually flows from the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Court’s Views On Promotion

The Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab,[1] highlighted that the principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified.

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra,[2] the Apex Court held that it that the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A(j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly, and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer.

It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity.

If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct, or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by an appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct, and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and the standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency, and devotion.

In the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain,[3] the Apex Court held that all that is required by the authority recording confidential in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated.

Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse, and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true.

Moreover, in the case of Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana,[4] the Apex Court held that it is true that in view of the settled legal position, the object of writing the confidential reports or character roll of a government servant and communication of the adverse remarks is to afford an opportunity to the officer concerned to make amends to his remissness; to reform himself; to mend his conduct and to be disciplined, to do hard work, to bring home the lapse in his integrity and character so that he corrects himself and improves the efficiency in public service.

The entries, therefore, require an objective assessment of the work and conduct of a government servant reflecting as accurately as possible his sagging inefficiency and incompetency. The defects and deficiencies brought home to the officer are means to the end of correcting himself and to show improvement towards excellence. The confidential report, therefore, would contain the assessment of the work, devotion to duty, and integrity of the officer concerned.

Conclusion

The Annual Confidential Report (ACR) continues to remain one of the most decisive instruments in the career progression of officers and JCOs in the Indian Armed Forces. While its intended purpose is to provide an objective and holistic appraisal of an officer’s abilities, potential, and integrity, the misuse of this tool through arbitrary or biased grading by the Initiating Officer (IO) or Reviewing Authorities has, in several cases, deprived deserving officers of their rightful promotions. Such practices not only erode the morale of the force but also contravene the constitutional guarantees of equality and fair consideration under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The judiciary, through numerous pronouncements, has consistently emphasized that fairness, transparency, and objectivity are indispensable in the writing and communication of ACRs. Adverse remarks or downgrading, unless duly justified, recorded with reasons, and communicated to the officer concerned, amount to a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court and other judicial forums have reiterated that the confidential reporting system must function as a constructive mechanism aimed at fostering professional excellence rather than becoming a tool for personal vendetta or bias.

Therefore, it is imperative for the Armed Forces to strengthen institutional safeguards, ensure accountability of reporting officers, and foster a culture of objective appraisal. Only then can the ACR system truly serve its purpose of nurturing leadership, integrity, and professionalism, while ensuring that promotions are awarded solely on merit. In doing so, the forces not only uphold the constitutional mandate but also preserve the trust and morale essential for the highest standards of military service.

[1] Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368.

[2] State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, (1997) 4 SCC 7.

[3] U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363.

[4] Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14.