IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Inspector Balwan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parveen Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.11.2025 whereby he has been ordered to retire from service w.e.f. 21.02.2026 upon attaining the age of 55 years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that by impugned order dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner has been ordered to retire from service w.e.f. 21.02.2026 upon attaining the age of 55 years. The respondent-State has wrongly appreciated service record of the petitioner. The impugned order is stigmatic, thus, needs to be set aside in terms of judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865

3. In view of directions of this Court, learned State counsel produced original file which after perusal was returned to him.

4. From the perusal of original record, it is evident that Authorities were not clear about the adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 27.09.2023 to 05.02.2024. The Reporting Authority categorized petitioner’s ACR as ‘Good’ whereas Additional Director General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak (‘ADGP’) declared it as ‘Average’. ADGP though commented that petitioner is below average on the basis of illegal gratification demanded from complainant, however, did not change column of ‘Honesty’.

5. As per government instructions dated 05.02.2019, an employee should not be retained beyond 55 years, if his integrity is found doubtful in previous 10 ACRs. In the case of petitioner, the Reporting Authority recorded his ACR as ‘Good’ and higher authority downgraded it to ‘below average’, however, did not change column of ‘Honesty’. The Reporting Authority declared him honest and higher authority did not change said column. As per Government instructions, if integrity is doubtful an employee should not be retained beyond 55 years. The respondent by not changing column of ‘Integrity’, directly or indirectly favoured him. The Authorities while passing impugned order have not considered any punishment order. Sole basis of impugned order is adverse remarks recorded by ADGP in one ACR. As per Government instructions, ACRs of last 10 years have to be considered out of which 70% should be ‘Good’. The petitioner is having more than 70% good ACRs.

6. The respondent while passing impugned order has noticed judgment of Naresh Kumar (supra) still recorded that petitioner’s ACR for the period from 27.09.2023 to 05.02.2024 was ‘below average’ on the basis of illegal gratification demanded from the complainant. The said observation was stigmatic and could have been avoided.

7. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. Order dated 17.11.2025 is hereby set aside.

8. It is made clear that this order would not debar the respondents to pass fresh order at a subsequent stage if conduct of the petitioner is found contrary to aforesaid Government instructions.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

29.01.2026 Mohit Kumar