[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejpal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
203 CWP-19464-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2026
TEJPAL ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. S.K. Daaria, 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 EHC (Driver). The respondent in exercise of power
conferred by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to
State of Haryana, vide notice dated 29.05.2019 has ordered 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 19 years. He has more than 70% good ACRs
during last 10 years. Thus, he has wrongfully been ordered to retire on
1 of 5
attaining the age of 55 years. Except one adverse ACR which was not
based upon concrete material, there was no other adverse ACR or material
warranting impugned order. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He was
exonerated in criminal proceedings and punishment awarded by
departmental authorities was set aside by Civil Court, thus, for all intents
and purposes he had clean record and respondent was bound to grant him
extension of three 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. 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.
2 of 5
(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."
6. As per reply, the petitioner was implicated in FIR No.52 dated
05.11.2012 under Section 223/224 IPC registered at Police Station
Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi because one under trial escaped from his
custody. He was exonerated by Inquiry Officer, however, Disciplinary
Authority after recording disagreement note vide order dated 04.08.2014
awarded him punishment of reversion from the rank of EHC to Constable.
Commissioner of Police, Gurugram substituted punishment of reduction in
rank by stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. He filed Civil
Suit which was decreed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurugram vide
order dated 09.02.2016. His integrity was recorded doubtful in the ACR for
the period from April' 2013 to September' 2013. He filed representations
against adverse remarks which were dismissed by higher authorities.
3 of 5
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. Petitioner's one ACR reported adverse remarks qua
integrity, thus, he was covered by government instructions.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. The respondent by
impugned notice/order retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 55
years. Said order was passed on 12.07.2019 and a period of more than 6
years has passed away. Had the impugned order not been passed, the
petitioner would have worked for three more years. He was made to retire
w.e.f. 14.06.2019. As per PPR read with Civil Services Rules, the State
Government may or may not retain an employee beyond 55 years. The
petitioner has already attained age of 58 years. He must have received
pension during the period which could be extended beyond 55 years.
Amount of pension is normally 50% of last drawn pay. As petitioner has
already received 50% of pay without work, there seems no reason at this
stage to interfere with impugned order.
4 of 5
9. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves
to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
March 06, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
