IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 Karan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Ms. Navdeep Kaur Gill, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant 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 23.12.2025 whereby he has been retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. He is further seeking direction to respondent to decide his legal notice dated 03.01.2026.

2. The petitioner belongs to Haryana Police Force and at present is holding rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He is going to attain age of 55 years on 27.02.2026. The competent authority assessed him dishonest and unreliable officer in Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 22.04.2017 to 01.08.2017. He preferred representation against adverse remarks before Higher Authority. His representation came to be dismissed vide communication dated 28.05.2025. The representation was dismissed after considering comments of the Reporting Authority. The respondent 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’) has ordered to retire him w.e.f. 27.02.2026 upon attaining the age of 55 years. He has preferred representation dated 03.01.2026 to the respondent to allow him to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was adverse entry qua honesty/integrity in his ACR for the period from 22.04.2017 to 01.08.2017. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Haryana has expunged said remark, thus, impugned order is bad in the eye of law.

4. Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana produced original record which was prepared at the time of passing impugned order. After perusal, record is returned to learned State counsel.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. As per record, respondent has considered adverse entry recorded in petitioner’s ACR for the aforesaid period. The State Government as well as office of Director General of Police has issued instructions regarding retirement at the age of 55 years. Power to retire at the age of 55 years is enshrined in Rule 9.18(1)(c) of PPR. The power has been exercised by competent authority and impugned order is not stigmatic. As per respondent impugned order is not stigmatic, thus, it should not be disturbed. The impugned order has been passed considering adverse entry in the petitioner’s ACR qua integrity.

7. The Home Department has expunged adverse remarks, thus, respondent while passing impugned order could not and wrongly relied upon said remarks. There is no adverse material on record disclosing that petitioner was not a man of character and should be weeded out. In such circumstances, the respondent was bound by its instructions dated

05.02.2019. As per said instructions, petitioner has been wrongly made to retire at the age of 55 years. The impugned order dated 23.12.2025 deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

8. Before parting with the judgment, the Court would hasten to add that it has noticed that Home Department is improving police officials’ ACR(s) in a very casual and mechanical manner. As per prescribed procedure, ACR is recorded by Superintendent of Police. It is approved by higher authority i.e. Inspector General of Police or Additional Director General of Police (‘ADGP’). The officer gets opportunity to file representation which is considered by ADGP or Director General of Police. The police officers, without any provision in the PPR, file representation before Home Department and Additional Chief Secretary expunges adverse remarks recorded in the ACR. On the direction of this Court, Home Department has fi