CWP-23184-2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (202) CWP-23184-2014 Date of Decision : July 02, 2026 Vivek Bhatia .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate, (joined through VC) with Mr. Ishaan Mundeja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Sr. Panel Counsel, with Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents-UOI. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 6- the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby OA No. 538/HR/2012 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) which were not communicated to the petitioner which described the petitioner as average, were never communicated but were taken into consideration for assessing the suitability for further promotion, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner, which aspect has not been noticed by the Tribunal in the correct manner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that un- communicated report cannot be taken into account and in case any such report is to be taken into account, opportunity to represent again said report has to be HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23184-2014 2 given, which was never given to the petitioner at any given point of time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner seeks liberty of this Court to file representation for the upgradation of his adverse report especially against report of 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 to be decided in a time bound manner and in case, said plea is accepted, reconsideration of his claim for further promotion by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Review DPC). 5. Keeping in view the said request, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in case any representation is filed by the petitioner for upgradation of his ACR including the ACRs for the year 2003-2004 and 2004- 2005 within a period of one month from today, such representation be looked into with open mind and decide whether the concerned ACR can be upgraded in any manner and an appropriate order on the said representation will be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. In case the authorities come to the conclusion that the concerned reports are upgraded, then, the revised consideration for promotion be extended to the petitioner. In case, the representation is rejected, no further action is required to be taken. 5. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 02, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document