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

Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 PARDEEP KUMAR ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. 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 orders whereby he has been ordered to retire upon attaining the age of 55 years.

2. The petitioner belongs to Haryana Police Force and was holding rank of Head Constable. 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’) vide notice dated 04.12.2018 ordered decided to retire him upon attaining the age of 55 years.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason. The petitioner has unblemished service record of 33 years. He has more than 70% good ACRs during last 10 years. Thus, he has wrongfully been ordered to retire on attaining the age of 55 years.

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. The object of compulsorily 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. The Supreme Court in “State of Gujarat Versus 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.

(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.”

7. The power to pass order of premature retirement is an absolute discretion of the competent authority. The said power cannot be exercised in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. There should be application of mind. From the perusal of record, it is evident that competent authority has considered last 10 ACRs of the petitioner. The order has been passed by the competent authority. The Authority after examining the entire service record formed an opinion that petitioner should be retired at the age of 55 years. There is neither any allegation nor evidence to the effect that there was mala fide intention on the part of respondents. As per government instructions, an employee should not be retained beyond 55 years if his integrity is found doubtful and having less than 70% good reports in previous 10 ACRs.

8. From t