The High Court clarifies that, in compulsory retirement proceedings against police officials, only ACRs from the last 10 years can be considered where Government Instructions so mandate—reaffirming that such instructions are binding on authorities, and overbroad reliance on earlier entries is impermissible. This decision upholds the precedent for disciplinary actions under Haryana service rules.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6646/2024 of SHISH PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010373562024 |
| Date of Registration | 18-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for cases involving application of compulsory retirement rules and government instructions in Haryana. |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment Law (Police Service Rules, Government Instructions) |
| Questions of Law | Whether authorities can consider ACRs and punishments outside the last 10 years for the purpose of compulsory retirement of a police official, despite specific Government Instructions limiting consideration to last 10 years. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, as per Government Instructions dated 05.02.2019, which are binding, only ACRs of the last 10 years can be considered for compulsory retirement decisions for Police officials in Haryana. The Rules require 70% of those ACRs to be good or above for retention beyond certain service/age milestones. The reliance on ACRs and punishments beyond this period, especially when no adverse entries exist in the relevant window, is impermissible. In the present case, the impugned orders considered time-barred ACRs and punishments, and overlooked that all relevant entries for the last 10 years were positive or had been set aside. The impugned order was thus vitiated. The Court accordingly set aside the compulsory retirement order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a police constable since 1989, was compulsorily retired on the basis of old punishments and adverse ACRs. The relevant incident dated to 2009, when a police team posted at a village resulted in violence and department inquiry. The petitioner received punishments and adverse ACRs, some of which were later set aside. The authorities considered incidents and ACRs outside the last 10 years despite existing Government Instructions. Other officials with similar records were not compulsorily retired. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Haryana dealing with compulsory retirement of police and government officials under similar service rules and instructions. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals addressing the scope and binding nature of government-issued service rules/instructions in disciplinary proceedings. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that Government Instructions strictly limiting consideration to the last 10 years of ACRs are binding on disciplinary authorities.
- Reliance on expunged punishments or adverse ACRs that fall outside the specified period is impermissible for compulsory retirement decisions.
- The judgment clarifies that service rules and instructions must be followed scrupulously, and authorities cannot expand their scope by referring to earlier service record unless permitted.
- Disparate treatment (i.e., retiring one official when others from the same incident/team are promoted) is impermissible if not justified by adverse material within the relevant period.
- Lawyers may cite this ruling to challenge compulsory retirement orders grounded in stale or irrelevant service records.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s compulsory retirement order was based on punishments and ACRs, some of which related to a 2009 incident.
- It was established that the Government of Haryana’s Instructions dated 05.02.2019, which are binding, require only the last 10 years’ ACRs to be considered for compulsory retirement decisions.
- Rules 144 and 145 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, and Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable), were interpreted to delimit the relevant period for scrutiny to the last 10 years.
- The Court pointed out that punishments/ACRs outside this period, including those already expunged or relating to incidents for which the petitioner had already been penalized, should not be considered.
- The authorities’ reliance on the 2009 ACR was thus in contravention of the binding instructions.
- Furthermore, all other team members in the same incident had not been subjected to similar action, underlining the inequity.
- The Court concluded that the grounds for compulsory retirement were neither plausible nor convincing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner received punishments for the 2009 incident long ago and those related entries and warnings had either been set aside or were beyond the 10-year window.
- Other police officials involved in the same incident were neither compulsorily retired nor penalized further; some were promoted.
- Adverse ACRs referenced by the respondent either predated the relevant period or were expunged.
- Government instructions mandate consideration of only last 10 years’ ACRs.
Respondent (State)
- Authorities followed due process and had the competence to consider the entire service record, not being limited to the last 10 years.
- Scope of judicial interference in compulsory retirement matters is limited.
- Petitioner had been given fair opportunity prior to the decision.
Factual Background
The petitioner was a Haryana police constable involved in a 2009 incident at Village Singhwal, which resulted in violence against a Warrant Officer and the murder of a companion. Departmental proceedings and criminal trial ensued, with the petitioner receiving several punishments including forfeiture of increments and warnings, some of which were later set aside. Despite having 100% good ACRs in the last 10 years, he was compulsorily retired based on older service record entries. Other similarly situated team members were not compulsorily retired.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpretation of Government Instructions dated 05.02.2019, mandating consideration of only the last 10 years’ ACRs for compulsory retirement.
- Application of Rule 144 and Rule 145 of Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016.
- Consideration of Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable), which aligns with service rule provisions.
- No interpretation allowing reliance on ACRs or punishments outside the prescribed 10-year period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows binding Government Instructions and reaffirms the settled position regarding reliance on service records for compulsory retirement.