IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.06.2025 Mehar Singh Rattu ....Petitioner V/s The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate with Mr. Prabhsher Singh Walia, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.3.

*****

SUMEET GOEL , JUDGE

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking, in essence, the quashing of recommendation dated 21.09.2000 of the Full Court of respondent No.2, order dated 25.09.2000 passed by respondent No.2 withdrawing Judicial work from petitioner and consequential order dated 10.10.2000 (P-30-A) issued by Respondent No.3 (State of Punjab) whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired from service.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) The petitioner, upon his induction into the Punjab Superior Judicial Services in the year 1990, served as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab on multiple postings across different Session Divisions.

(ii) The concerned Administrative Judge, during the course of inspection of Sessions Division at Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab), rendered adverse observations relating to petitioner’s judicial efficacy, professional competence and integrity which were subsequently added into the inspection report. The said unfavorable remarks were communicated to the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner is stated to have made representation against the same which was declined by the Administrative Judge and decision thereof was conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 24.07.1997.

(iii) Subsequent to the above-said rejection of his representation, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation requesting the Full Court of respondent No.2 to review and reconsider the said adverse inspection remarks. The petitioner, vide communication dated 05.08.1997, was apprised of a proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him in view of recommendations of the Full Court of respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 14.05.1997. Pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner but the said charges came to be dropped later on by the Full Court of respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 12.09.1997.

(iv) Vide communication dated 17.09.1997, the petitioner was intimated regarding recording of an adverse entry, as regards his integrity, for the year 1996-97. The petitioner, relying upon his above-referred exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings, sought for expunction of adverse remarks. However, the same was declined vide communication dated 13.02.1998. Further representations made by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks also came to be rejected.

(v) In the inspection report for the year 1997-98, the adverse remarks were again recorded against the petitioner’s judicial functioning. However, upon consideration of representation made by the petitioner regarding the same, the said remarks were subsequently classified as “Advisory”. The petitioner’s ACR (Annual Confidential Report) for the year 1997-98 came to be recorded as “Average”.

(vi) Another representation by the petitioner, routed through the Law Ministry, was rejected vide order dated 01.10.1999 passed by respondent No.2 after deliberation thereupon. The High Court recommended for the issuance of a charge-sheet against the petitioner for imposition of a major penalty but the same was later dropped by the Full Court of respondent No.2 by issuance of recordable warning to the petitioner thereby advising him greater caution in future vide communication dated

06.04.2000.

(vii) Upon the matter, pertaining to retention of the petitioner i