The AFT also noted in its order that seniority is a primary consideration, but cannot be the ‘sole criterion’ for the selection of important appointments like the Navy Chief. The AFT added that main reason why Verma was superseded was because he was given a ‘Letter of Severe Displeasure’, after being found guilty of a ‘serious supervisory lapse’ in 2005 involving the security of the navy’s war room

NEW DELHI: The Armed Forces Tribunal on Monday dismissed the petition filed by Andaman and Nicobar Command chief Vice Admiral Bimal Verma challenging the appointment of Admiral Karambir Singh as the Navy Chief, adding that Verma is ‘short of material’ to prove there was bias against him and knows that ‘he has already missed the bus because of his own shortcomings’.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) also took note of Verma’s ‘carefree and casual attitude’ in not providing his Annual Confidential Report (ACR looks at work performance and character) for 2017-18 to the appointing authority. The court said that this ‘cannot be accepted’, especially when he is heading the Andaman & Nicobar Command and is aspiring to become the Navy Chief.

The AFT also noted in its order that seniority is a primary consideration, but cannot be the ‘sole criterion’ for the selection of important appointments like the Navy Chief. Verma, earlier this year, had sought to quash the government’s March 23 order to appoint his six-months junior, Admiral Singh, as the next Navy Chief. Singh was then the Eastern Naval Commander.

The AFT on May 29 had cleared the way for Singh to become the chief, but made his continuation in the post subject to the outcome of Verma’s petition. The government has maintained that merit and not just seniority was the deciding factor in selecting the service chiefs.

The tribunal also said that ‘negative traits or records’ can be taken note of by the government while considering officers for the post of a service chief. It added that the government was ‘justified’ in superseding Verma, because there were several ‘infirmities’ in his record and he was found unsuitable for the post of the Navy Chief. Singh, who was next in seniority after Verma, was fully fit.

The AFT added that main reason why Verma was superseded was because he was given a ‘Letter of Severe Displeasure’, after being found guilty of a ‘serious supervisory lapse’ in 2005 involving the security of the navy’s war room. It added that this incident was serious enough to have resulted in dismissal from service of his subordinate officers at that time.

While adding that ‘no wrong has been done’ to Verma, the tribunal added that it is a testimony to the fairness of the government that rather than debar him from further promotions after the war room leak, they took a ‘nuanced approach’ by continuing to promote him.

“What appears to us is that the applicant (Verma) has very conveniently levelled the allegation of bias and malafide for the sake of it, without knowing that he is short of material to prove it or in his wisdom thought that he has already missed the bus because of his own shortcomings and, therefore, the present attempt,” the tribunal said.

The AFT noted that Verma had tried to take advantage of his move of not placing his ACR before the appointing authority and claim that his service profile that was looked into was incomplete. Through this Verma had tried to project that the government favoured Singh.

“The applicant was blameworthy of not submitting his ACR form in time, which was his duty, he is now attempting to put the blame on the respondents...We take it adversely against him. Such a carefree or casual approach cannot be accepted, especially when he is holding the appointment of CINCAN (Commander-in-Chief Andaman & Nicobar Command) in the rank of Vice Admiral and aspiring to become CNS (Chief of Naval Staff),” the AFT said.