IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 RAM SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- None for the petitioner Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

i. Order dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure P-19) whereby he was ordered to be compulsory retired;

ii. Order dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-18) whereby his representation for expunging the remarks in ACR was rejected; and iii. Order dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure P-13) whereby respondent No.2 imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments.

2. The respondent by impugned notice/order has retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. The said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 3.26(d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I and Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’).

3. The impugned order was passed in September’ 2010. Had the impugned order not been passed, the petitioner would have worked for three more years. He was part of Haryana Police Force and his service was pensionable, thus, he must have received pension which is 50% of last drawn salary. He had not worked during said period. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted.

4. Scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited. An Authority is best judge of subordinate’s strength and weakness. In the absence of material irregularity, the Court cannot substitute opinion of the authorities.

5. In CWP-20171-2010 titled as “Dharamvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.”, Full Bench of this Court considered question of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR. The Full Bench adjudicated the issue vide judgment dated 14.08.2024. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below: -

“22. After considering the entire gamut of law we are of the opinion that writing of confidential reports is in public interest. It is the periodic assessment by the superior officer of the work done by his subordinate. The primary object of writing of confidential reports is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve excellence. This is in furtherance of Article 51-A(j) of the Indian Constitution as per which upon every citizen is the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove his best, individually and collectively. Confidential reports are also maintained by the government and other organizations to assess the employee’s service record at the time of consideration of his case for grant of increments, promotions, retention in service etc.

23. Writing of confidential reports is an administrative function. It should be done objectively and fairly. Subject to the confidential report being a bonafide opinion of the reporting officer and not based on his whims, 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 as it is he under whose watch is the officer whose confidential report is being written.

24. Recording of confidential reports is not a penalty but these reports and in particular entries doubting the employee’s integrity would certainly prejudice the employee’s career. Even a solitary entry of doubtful integrity in the employee’s confidential reports can propel his ouster from service. It could also adversely impact the grant to him of increments, promotions etc. Thus, recording of the entry with regard to doubting the employee’s integrity must be only after the employee’s work and conduct has been assessed objectively and dispassionately. To hold otherwise could invite mischief. Such an entry should not be based on the reporting officer’s mere notion or supposition or assumption. The entry of doubting of