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

Date of Decision: 24.02.2026

1. CWP-1253-2006 (O&M)

Ram Rattan ...Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondent(s)

2. CWP-10474-2009 (O&M)

Ram Rattan ...Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Teevar Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-1253-2006

2. 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 03.11.2002 to 31.03.2003. He is further seeking setting aside of order dated 17.06.2009 whereby he has been retired upon attaining the age of 55 years.

3. The petitioner belonged to Haryana Police Force. He was promoted from time to time. When he was holding rank of Inspector, he was assigned charge of investigation of FIR No.63 dated 23.03.2003 registered under Section 395 of IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him alleging irregularity in investigation of aforesaid FIR wherein he was exonerated. The Competent Authority recorded his ACR for the period from 03.11.2002 to 31.03.2003. The Reporting Authority assessed him as unreliable officer and recorded his integrity doubtful. The remarks of the Reporting Officer were communicated to him on 06.01.2005. He preferred representation against adverse remarks before Higher Authority. His representation came to be dismissed vide communication dated 14.09.2005. The representation was dismissed after considering comments of the Reporting Authority. He attained age of 55 years in 2009. The respondent in exercise of power conferred by Rule 3.26(d) of CSR, Volume I, Part I, ordered to retire him.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that respondent recorded adverse remarks in his ACR on the basis of non-action of the petitioner against Mr. Ravi Chautala on the direction of respondent No.3. There was no concrete material. In the absence of concrete evidence, it was not desirable for the authority to comment adversely qua integrity of the petitioner. The Reporting Authority’s comment was in direct conflict of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.20171 of 2010 titled as ‘Dharamvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others’.

5. Learned State Counsel 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. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the retirement order warranting judicial interference. The retirement order has been passed by a duly competent authority and that too after scrutinizing petitioner’s past record as well as Government instructions on the issue.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. 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 service record at the time of consideration of his case for grant of increments, promotions, retentio