Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dev Charan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2025
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-3256-2024
Date of Decision: 11.11.2025
Dev Charan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, 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 order
dated 06.11.2023 whereby he was retired at the age of 55 years w.e.f.
09.03.2024.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on
29.09.1989. He was promoted from time to time. In 2019, he was holding
rank of Exemptee Sub Inspector. He turned 55 years on 09.03.2024. The
respondent issued him notice dated 26.10.2023 for retirement. The said
notice was followed by order dated 06.11.2023 whereby He was ordered
to retire at the age of 55 years. The said order was passed in terms of Rule
9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of
Haryana) (in short 'PPR').
3. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits
1 of 4
that petitioner was subjected to departmental inquiries, however, all the
inquiries culminated in maximum punishment of censure. He was never
finally awarded punishment of forfeiture of increments. The jurisdictional
authority in his one ACR has recorded his integrity doubtful. He
challenged adverse remarks recorded by jurisdictional authority before
Higher Authority. His representation was rejected and he has preferred
CWP No.27471 of 2023 before this Court assailing adverse remarks
recorded in ACR.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was
found involved in many cases. On three occasions, he was found to be
involved in accepting illegal gratification. The Competent Authority
before passing order under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of PPR has considered his
past record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
6. During the course of hearing, learned State counsel produced
original office file. Perused the file and is returned to learned State
counsel.
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 has also
considered pending/concluded departmental proceedings. The said
authority has also noticed punishments awarded to petitioner and their
2 of 4
ultimate fate. The Authorities after examining the entire service record
have 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. The order has been
passed by competent authority. Multiple times, the petitioner was
awarded minor or major punishments. On more than one occasions, he
was found involved in accepting illegal gratification. On one occasion,
the Reporting Authority of ACR doubted his integrity. As per instructions
issued by the State Government, if integrity of an officer is doubtful, he is
bound to be retired on attaining the age of 55 years.
8. 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.
9. The 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 regard to the
3 of 4
entire service record of the officer.
(iii) Any adverse entries made in the confidential
record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage
in passing such order.
(iv) Even uncommunicated entries in the
confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(v) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be
passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when
such course is more desirable.
(vi) If the officer was given a promotion despite
adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a
fact in favour of the officer.
(vii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as
a punitive measure."
10. In the wake of aforesaid judgment, discussion and findings,
this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
11.11.2025
Prince Chawla
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
