A police officer’s compulsory retirement at age 55 based on adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) will not be set aside if the officer did not challenge either the adverse ACR entries or the underlying government instructions. The High Court reaffirms the binding nature of State instructions and the procedure for compulsory retirement under Rule 9.18(1)(c), cementing the position for all future similar cases in Haryana Police service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/29934/2025 of Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others |
| CNR | PHHC011611392025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Haryana |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Police Service, Compulsory Retirement) |
| Questions of Law | Whether compulsory retirement at age 55 based on adverse ACR entries and government instructions can be challenged without separately contesting the ACR entries or those instructions themselves? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that if a government employee has not challenged the adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs nor the relevant government instructions, the order for compulsory retirement based on these cannot be set aside. The policy is backed by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), and government instructions mandate that if integrity is doubted in any ACR of the last ten years, extension beyond age 55 is not permitted. The order of retirement is not stigmatic and follows due process. In such cases, lack of challenge to the relevant adverse material is fatal to the petition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, a Haryana police officer, was made to retire at age 55 under Rule 9.18(1)(c), based on adverse ACRs doubting his integrity; although acquitted in a prior criminal case, the officer never challenged the adverse ACRs or the government retirement policy instructions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Haryana |
| Persuasive For | May be cited in other states with similar service rules and ACR-based retirement policies |
| Follows | Follows existing State Government instructions regarding ACRs and Rule 9.18(1)(c) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that an employee cannot get relief against compulsory retirement based on adverse ACRs if he did not challenge those adverse entries through proper administrative channels.
- Adverse government policy/instructions, if not challenged in the proceedings, cannot be overlooked by the court when determining legality of a compulsory retirement order.
- Compulsory retirement orders under Rule 9.18(1)(c) based on ACRs with “doubtful integrity” are not stigmatic if procedural requirements are met.
- Lawyers must advise clients to promptly challenge adverse ACR entries and related government instructions if contesting their retirement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court began by reviewing the petitioner’s employment history and the basis for his compulsory retirement. The key issue identified was the entries “integrity doubted” in two ACRs within the last ten years, pursuant to which, according to existing government instructions, extension of service beyond 55 years cannot be granted. Importantly, the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the adverse ACR entries nor the government instructions supporting this policy. Having found these uncontested, the court held that it cannot set aside the retirement order, as the policy had been duly followed and the order was not stigmatic. The absence of a direct challenge to either the underlying adverse material or the policy instructions foreclosed judicial relief.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner had previously faced a criminal trial and was honorably acquitted.
- Contended that the criminal case and its resultant mention in the ACRs was malicious.
- Claimed adverse ACR entries should be ignored post-acquittal, and that retirement at age 55 was unwarranted.
Respondent (State)
- Relied on government instructions that mandate denial of extension where integrity is doubted in any ACR of the last ten years.
- Pointed to the fact that adverse ACR entries and policy instructions were never challenged by the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a member of the Haryana Police since 1989 and holding the post of EASI at the time of the petition, was compulsorily retired at age 55 via orders dated 25.07.2025 and 08.09.2025 under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The basis for retirement was that his integrity had been doubted in two ACRs during the periods 06.07.2016–10.10.2016 and 14.11.2016–31.03.2017. These adverse entries were influenced by his implication (and subsequent acquittal) in a 2015 criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No challenge was made to either the ACR entries or the government instructions dictating such retirements.
Statutory Analysis
The court interpreted Rule 9.18(1)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), which governs compulsory retirement of police officials. It further referenced State Government instructions which establish that any adverse integrity entry in ACRs within the last ten years prohibits granting of service extension beyond the age of 55. The court applied these provisions strictly, emphasizing the requirement for specific challenge to adverse entries or policies before relief can be granted.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were articulated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms and applies existing State Government policy and service law principles regarding compulsory retirement based on ACR entries.