IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 11, 2026 Randeep Singh Guleria .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate and Ms. Arshita Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents-UOI.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal by which, the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (Annexure A-8) for the period starting from 29.03.2006 to 30.08.2006, has been upheld by the Tribunal to be correct in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that not only the Army Authorities but also the Tribunal has ignored the relevant facts which would go to show that not only the incident which took place on 22.02.2006 could not have been taken into account to record the adverse report against the petitioner in the ACR but, even incident dated 12.08.2006 which occurred during the leave period i.e. from 17.07.2006 to 18.08.2006, has been attributed to the petitioner to record the adverse remarks in his ACR.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though, in the Confidential Report, the incident dated 12.08.2006 has not been mentioned per se but the same is being brought in operation by way of written statement which even otherwise could not have been possible to support the adverse remarks (Annexure A-8), which fact has been ignored by the Tribunal while upholding such remarks, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner as he has been denied further promotion to the post of Brigadier.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India submits that though, in the adverse remarks (Annexure A-8) recorded against petitioner, which were impugned before the Tribunal, it has been mentioned that the Unit under the command of the petitioner was found to be guilty of six innocent civilians death on two different occasions hence, out of these 6 deaths, two deaths relate to the incident dated 22.02.2006 and 12.08.2006 and therefore, the same were rightly recorded and the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that the same were incorrect, is liable to be rejected.

5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents-UOI and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that it is a conceded fact between the parties before this Court that in the Court of enquiry initiated against the petitioner where, certain civilians death had been attributed to the petitioner, he has already been exonerated qua the said allegation qua incident dated

22.02.2006 but still the said allegation has been recorded in the ACR of petitioner attributing civilian deaths to the petitioner has already been expunged.

7. The question which now arises is whether, once the said allegation has been expunged, same can be part ACR concerning petitioner, can remain in the ACR? The ACR, which is under challenge is being reproduced hereunder for the ready reference:

“ Reviewing Officer Col R S Guleria while in command of 33 RR has created a dangerous degree of tension in the unit by various immature actions and utterances. His method of handling various issues incl day-to-day matters has been very abrasive. The unit under his command has also been guilty of six innocent civs deaths on two different occasions. He is not suitable to continue in command of 33 RR in CT ops environment of Kashmir.

(a) Details of guidance for improvement during the Reporting Period (i) Verbal: Yes on 24 Feb 06 (ii) Written: Nil (b) Do you recommend any portion of the report by the IO to be expunged? If so state such portions and reasons: No (c) XX