IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 Baljeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing)

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Deputy 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 order dated 25.03.2021 whereby he has been ordered to retire from service w.e.f.

10.04.2021 upon attaining the age of 55 years.

2. The petitioner was enrolled in Haryana Police as Constable on 01.08.1985. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.01.1992. He preferred CWP No.11640 of 1993 before this Court which was dismissed. He approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. He preferred representation before Director General of Police, Haryana (‘DGP’) on the directions of Supreme Court. He preferred CWP No.9395 of 1996 before this Court assailing order of DGP. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2011 remitted the matter back to Authorities for reconsideration. The respondent again considered the matter and vide order dated 13.08.2012 ordered to reinstate him without benefit of salary for the period he remained out of service. He was also awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect.

He was issued show cause notice dated 21.10.2020 proposing compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana (for short ‘PPR’). He filed reply to said notice. The Superintendent of Police vide order dated 25.03.2021 ordered to retire him w.e.f. 10.04.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority. The impugned order could not be passed by Superintendent of Police. No permission was sought from Government before passing impugned order. He was awarded punishment of forfeiture of three increments as well as denied salary for the absence period, thus, his retirement at the age of 55 years on account of past record amounted to double punishment.

4. Learned State counsel submits that impugned order was passed under 9.18(1)(c) of PPR and order under said Rule can be passed by jurisdictional SP. This Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 has already held that Superintendent of Police is competent to pass order under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of PPR.

5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was holding rank of Constable at the time of passing impugned order. This Court in Naresh Kumar (supra) has already settled the issue qua jurisdiction of Superintendent of Police to pass order under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of PPR. In view of said judgment, there is no infirmity in the impugned order qua jurisdiction.

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 regar