JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-2096-2006.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 10.05.2003 to 01.10.2003. He is further seeking setting aside of notice dated 10.11.2009 whereby he has been retired upon attaining the age of 55 years.

3. The petitioner belonged to Haryana Police Force. In 2008 while he was holding rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), he was assigned charge of investigation of FIR No.105 dated 31.05.2008 and FIR No.170 dated 05.08.2008. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him alleging irregularity in investigation of aforesaid FIRs. The Disciplinary Authority found him guilty of alleged charges. The Competent Authority recorded his ACR for the period from 10.05.2003 to 01.10.2003. The Reporting Authority assessed him dishonest and unreliable officer. The remarks of the Reporting Officer were communicated to him on 07.06.2004. He preferred representation against adverse remarks before Higher Authority. His representation came to be dismissed vide communication dated 29.05.2005. The representation was dismissed after considering comments of the Reporting Authority. He attained age of 55 years on 10.10.2009. The respondent in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana (for short ‘PPR’), ordered to retire him w.e.f. 10.02.2010.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that respondent recorded adverse remarks in his ACR on the basis of verbal complaint of accepting bribe. There was no concrete material. In the absence of concrete evidence, it was not desirable for the authority to comment adversely qua integrity of the petitioner. The Reporting Authority’s comment was in direct conflict of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20171 of 2010 titled as Dharamvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that Reporting Authority is the best assessing authority. It knows act and conduct of its subordinates. The adverse remarks were based upon oral and written inputs received by Competent Authority. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the retirement order warranting judicial interference. The retirement order has been passed by a duly competent authority and that too after scrutinizing petitioner’s past record as well as Government instructions on the issue.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has enunciated that adverse remarks qua integrity recorded in ACR adversely affect future prospects of an employee. Writing of confidential reports is an administrative function. Officers reporting upon performance must show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment, without any prejudices whatsoever and the highest sense of responsibility so as to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity. Officers get demoralised by negative ACR which reduces their efficacy and efficiency. Confidential reports are maintained by the government and other organisations to assess the employee's service record at the time of consideration of his case for grant of increments, promotions, retention in service etc. The Courts would normally refrain to interfere with the recording thereof. The reason for such reluctance is because the officer who is entrusted with the duty of writing confidential reports is best suited for this job.

8. In the case in hand, the petitioner was made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years. He was not given extension beyond 10.02.2010. Adverse remarks in ACR did not affect his pension and other benefits. Further, it is Supervising Authority