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

Date of Decision:13.02.2026 Wali Mohd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. N.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, 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 adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 20.09.2018 to 06.01.2019 and order dated 28.02.2020 whereby his representation was rejected. He is further seeking setting aside of order dated 04.03.2020 whereby he has been retired upon attaining the age of 55 years.

2. The petitioner belonged to Haryana Police Force. FIR No 08 dated 26.06.2018 under Section 7/13 of PC Act came to be registered against him at Police Station SVB, Faridabad on the allegation of demanding illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- from complainant Sanjiv Bhatia. He was suspended from service and was subjected to departmental inquiry vide order dated 27.06.2018. Departmental inquiry was stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 to the extent that common witnesses be not examined. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Faridabad (for short ‘DCP’) recorded adverse remarks in this ACR for the period from 20.09.2018 to 06.01.2019. The Reporting Authority assessed him dishonest, unreliable and below average officer. He filed representation before Commissioner of Police, Faridabad to expunge the same which came to rejected vide order dated 22.07.2019. Notice of premature retirement dated 25.11.2019 was served upon him. He preferred CWP-3983-2020 before this Hon’ble Court challenging order of commissioner dated 22.07.2019 and notice dated 25.11.2019. The matter was referred to competent Authority vide order dated 13.02.2020. The petitioner filed representation dated 24.02.2020 which was rejected by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad vide order dated 28.02.2020 and DCP was directed to pass fresh order of premature retirement. DCP, Faridabad 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. 08.03.2020. Petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 21.08.2023. In view of his acquittal, DCP, Faridabad exonerated him from departmental inquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was made to retire at the age of 55 years because of adverse entry qua integrity recorded in his ACR. Adverse entry in ACR was recorded on the basis of FIR No 08 dated 26.06.2018. The petitioner stands acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2022, thus, adverse entry in ACR has lost its significance. He has further been exonerated in departmental inquiry vide order dated 22.08.2023 passed by DCP, Faridabad. Thus, retirement order needs to be set aside with consequential benefits.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent 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.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. 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 servi