IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Karan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Sukhvir Singh Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parveen Mehta, Additional Advocate General, 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 notice dated 30.09.2019 and order dated 24.12.2019 whereby he was retired on attaining the age of 55 years.

2. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, petitioner preferred CWP No.36877 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2025. In order dated 03.03.2025, it was noticed that a period of 5½ years has passed away from the impugned notice and the petitioner could serve maximum upto 58 years, thus, petition has rendered infructuous.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned notice as well as order was stigmatic. The respondent could not pass stigmatic order under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana). There is no adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report (for short ‘ACR’). The adverse remarks recorded in his ACR stand subsequently expunged by higher authorities. In these circumstances, the impugned order should be set aside. The petitioner would not be able to serve for three years because he has already attained age of 58 years, however, would be entitled to notional benefits.

4. Learned State counsel submits that impugned order was served on the petitioner on 01.10.2019 and it was duly received by him.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The object of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is to weed out the dead woods in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service as well as to dispense with services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 has elaborated principles which ought to be followed in the matters relating to compulsory retirement. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

“11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(ii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.

(iii) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(iv) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(v) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vi) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(vii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.”

8. The power to pass order of premature retirement is an absolute discretion of the competent authority. The said power cannot be exercised in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. There should be application of mind. From the perusal of record, it is evident that competent authority has considered last 10 ACRs of the petitioner. The order has been passed by the competent authority. The Authority after examining the entire service record formed an opinion that petitioner should be retired at the age of 55 years. There is neither any allegation