In a judgment with far-reaching implications for military jurisprudence, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a commanding officer(CO) cannot be held responsible for incidents involving their unit while on sanctioned leave.The verdict set aside scathing adverse remarks from the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Colonel Randeep Singh Guleria, who commanded the 33 Rashtriya Rifles (RR) during a turbulent period in Jammu and Kashmir in 2006.The ramifications of the verdict will be widespread. While it is almost certain that the Union of India will challenge the High Court order in the Supreme Court, it is important to delve into the case, especially as it concerns events that occurred in a counterinsurgency environment in the Kashmir valley. While the officer’s application in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was dismissed, granting him partial relief, the divergent views of the AFT and the High Court are interesting.Civilian deaths and adverse remarksIn 2006, the 33 RR was involved in two separate firing incidents, resulting in the deaths of six civilians, including three children. On February 22, 2006, an incident occurred at Dudipur in the Handwara Tehsil of Kupwara district, Kashmir, when Colonel Guleria’s unit opened fire, resulting in the deaths of four civilians, including three children.The Army’s chain of command did not appreciate the unit’s action, and the Commanding Officer was counselled verbally and in writing several times to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. On August 12, 2006, another incident of firing took place, which led to two civilian deaths.Following these events, the Army’s chain of command initiated highly critical ACR entries against Col Guleria, who was commissioned in 1988, labelling him “unfit to command any unit” and “abrasive” in his leadership.The Initiating Officer (IO), the Reviewing Officer (RO) and the Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO), adversely commented upon him as the CO. The RO endorsed the following comments in the ACR:Story continues below this ad“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, including day-to-day matters has been very abrasive. The unit, under his command has also been guilty of six innocent civilians deaths on two different occasions. He is not suitable to continue in command of 33 RR in the CT operations environment of Kashmir”.Also Read | Before Operation Sindoor, there was Operation Maa. Its lessons must be rememberedThe IO’s remarks said that Guleria is a medium-built officer with good military bearing. Upon assuming command of a Rashtriya Rifles (RR) battalion, he struggled to understand the organisation’s dynamics and the environment in which his troops were operating, the IO noted.The IO also said Guleria’s transactional leadership approach led to disharmony within the unit and created apprehension among all ranks of the battalion.“The tension in the unit coupled with poor drills and procedures led to unfortunate killing of civilians by unit in operations effecting the morale of the battalion. The administrative procedures of unit too need improvement. The officer has aptitude for dealing with civilian populace and government officials. Guleria needs to better his leadership approach and quotient.”Story continues below this adThe SRO comments noted rumblings and turbulence in the unit since Guleria took over. “The two incidents of killing innocent civilians and the discontent in the unit indicate necessity for removal of the CO from Command – a situation I cannot accept in an operationally active area. I consider him unfit to command any unit.”All the above adverse comments have now been expunged from the ACR of Colonel Guleria following the High Court judgment.Petition before AFTCol Guleria challenged these remarks, first at the AFT and later at the High Court. He claimed that during the period in question, he was present in the command for only 27 days and absent for 128 days. He also said that he was on sanctioned leave on August 12, 2006, when the second fatal firing incident occurred. Two separate Courts of Inquiry (CoI) had already found him “not blameworthy” for the incidents, he argued.The AFT bench remained unconvinced by these arguments, stating that the issues involved in recording an ACR were distinct from those being examined by a Court of Inquiry.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Seniority vs merit in Army promotions: How Nehru’s Govt in newly Independent India tackled this challenge“The argument that the petitioner being on leave on 12.08.06 and by implication is not responsible for the act of his troops, has got no substance. The sub unit under the command of the petitioner caused the civilians death which reflects that the troops were inadequately trained and did not follow proper drills in spite of counselling given to the petitioner. The Commanding Officer of the unit is responsible for the acts and omissions of the troop, under his command, the AFT said in its order in August 2014.“It is the Commander who gets the Kudos prestige if troops under his command are successful and also is equally responsible for the failure of the troops. The petitioner cannot put himself at a distance with regard to the incident of 12.08.06.”High Court sets aside adverse commentsHowever, the High Court bench strongly disagreed, noting, “Once, an Officer is availing annual leave, how can any incident which occurred during the said period, during which he was on leave, can be attributed to such officer so as to record adverse remarks merely because said officer happens to be Commanding Officer of the Unit”.The High Court also frowned on the fact that the officer’s ACR recorded the two incidents even though he was not blameworthy by two inquiries. It also said the observation made by the reviewing officer about the petitioner’s conduct in his ACR was based on incidents or allegations that are no longer relevant to the petitioner. Therefore, these adverse remarks should not be recorded.Story continues below this ad“The counsel for the respondents was asked to submit any action/conduct of the petitioner which may justify the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR having been brought on record before the Tribunal or before this court. He has not been able to point out any such single relevant document which justifies such adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner during the period in question in his ACR,” the court noted.