IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:08.01.2026

Gobind Dass ESI

….Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Goyat, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.09.2025

(Annexure P-16) whereby he has been made to retire at the age of 55 years.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 07.07.1992. He scaled the ladder upwards. In 2023, he was holding rank of ESI. The respondent by impugned order has ordered to retire him on

attaining the age of 55 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s last ten year ACRs are ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. As per Government instructions, 70% ACRs of last ten years should be ‘Good’ to retain an officer beyond the age of 55 years. His integrity should not be ‘doubtful’. The respondent with

intent to pass impugned order downgraded petitioner’s ACR after

filing of writ petition No. 20639 of 2025 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and respondent passed fresh order. The ACR has been down graded by Superintendent of Police, Hansi whereas alleged offence was committed while petitioner was posted in Gurugram and punishment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram. It was Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram who was competent to downgrade his ACR. In any case, ACR was downgraded with ulterior motive. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police was adamant to retire the petitioner at the age of 55 years. The petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of six increments with permanent effect. He preferred appal which was partially allowed. He further preferred revision before Director General of Police which is still pending. As per Rule 16.14(6) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short “PPR”) adverse entries cannot be recorded in Character Roll till adjudication of appeal.

4. Learned State counsel reiterates the findings recorded by authorities as well as averments made in the written statement.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of six annual increments with permanent effect. There was allegation as well as findings against him that he has demanded bribe. The Appellate Authority reduced his punishment from forfeiture of six increments to five increments. He preferred revision which is still pending before Director General of Police. He is relying upon Rule 16.14 of PPR which reads as:-

“Punishment Register.

(1) A punishment register in Form 16.14 (1) shall be maintained in each district.

(2) Every award of departmental punishment, except awards of punishment drill not exceeding 10 days, shall be entered therein.

(3) All punishment inflicted by criminal courts upon police officers shall be entered at the reverse end of the punishment register.

(4) An award of dismissal in consequence of a criminal conviction shall not be shown separately as a departmental punishment.

(5) If the award is one of punishment drill not exceeding 10 days, the entry made in the Order Book shall be the only record of such punishment.

(6) All punishments required to be entered in the punishment register shall also be entered in character and service rolls Entries of punishment, against which an appeal lies, shall not be made in character or service rolls until the lapse of the period of appeal or until the appeal has been decided.” [Emphasis supplied]

7. From the perusal of above-quoted Rule, it is evident that adverse entry in Character Roll or service record cannot be made till adjudication of appeal. Appeal of the petitioner stands adjudicated, thus, he cannot claim benefit of Rule 16.14 of PPR. His revision is pending b