Dismissed¶26

Mahender Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2025CWP/11542/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACR; Annual Confidential Report; adverse entry/adverse remarks; subjective satisfaction of Reporting Authority; independence of departmental proceedings from ACR; dropping of charges; modification/substitution of punishment; censure; forfeiture of three increments; Haryana Police; Head Constable; alleged bribe demand from truck drivers; limited scope of judicial interference in ACR matters; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; CWP-11542-2021; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 04.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Initiation of departmental proceedings is independent from recording of ACR. ¶20

Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the adverse remarks in the petitioner's ACRs for the periods 15.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 22.04.2016 deserve to be set aside because the punishment in the departmental proceedings was reduced to censure by the Revisionary Authority. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Initiation of departmental proceedings is independent from recording of ACR.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Dropping of charges in the departmental proceedings or modification of punishment does not entail setting aside of adverse entries made in the ACR.

¶20

Key takeaways

Courts are not supposed to interfere with subjective satisfaction recorded by the Reporting Authority in the ACR; the competent authority considered the petitioner's representation and did not find substance.ratio¶20
Scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited.ratio¶21
An authority is best judge of a subordinate's strength and weaknesses; in the absence of material irregularity the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the authorities.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India (CWP-11542-2021, decided 04.07.2025) by Mahender Singh, a Haryana Police Head Constable, seeking setting aside of adverse remarks ('undisciplined'; 'integrity doubtful') in his ACRs for 15.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 22.04.2016. His representation was rejected. In connected departmental proceedings over an alleged demand of bribe from truck drivers, the punishment of forfeiture of three increments was, on revision, substituted by censure; the petitioner argued his ACR therefore deserved improvement. Held (Jagmohan Bansal J., oral): initiation of departmental proceedings is independent from recording of the ACR; dropping of charges or modification of punishment does not entail setting aside of adverse ACR entries; courts will not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Authority, and scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited — absent material irregularity the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the authorities. Petition dismissed as bereft of merit.

¶1

210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-11542-2021 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025

¶4

Mahender Singh

¶5

…Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Haryana and Others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report (for short ‘ACR’) for the period from 15.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 22.04.2016.

¶14

Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney. 3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable. He during the relevant period was holding post of Head Constable. The Reporting Authority in his ACR for the period from 15.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 22.04.2016 declared him undisciplined and found his integrity doubtful. He preferred representation before Higher Authorities which came to be rejected. The petitioner claims that adverse entry was recorded in his ACR because department initiated proceedings

¶15

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-11542-2021

¶17

-2-

¶18

against him alleging demand of bribe from truck drivers who are entering or passing through State of Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh. The disciplinary authority awarded him punishment of forfeiture of three increments. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority, however, Revisionary Authority substituted aforesaid punishment by censure. As punishment awarded by authorities has been reduced to censure, ACR needs to be improved and adverse findings deserve to be set aside.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

Initiation of departmental proceedings is independent from recording of ACR. The Reporting Authority records ACR on the basis of information available with it. It is subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Authority. Dropping of charges in the departmental proceedings or modification of punishment does not entail setting aside of adverse entries made in the ACR. It is settled proposition of law that Courts are not supposed to interfere with subjective satisfaction recorded by Reporting Authority in the ACR. The competent authority as per its wisdom and available record, recorded adverse remarks in the ACR. The petitioner was having opportunity to make representation which he availed. The competent authority considered his representation and did not find substance. The representation was rejected.

¶21

Scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited. An authority is best judge of subordinate’s strength and weaknesses. In the absence of material irregularity, the Court cannot substitute opinion of the

¶22

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11542-2021

-3-

authorities.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 04.07.2025 Prince Chawla Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶28

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.07.04 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mahender Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Chauhan Vs Vedic Girls Sr. Secondary School and Anr.

Janki Dass Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vijay Singh Chopra Vs Haryan State Khadi Board

Sappattar etc. Vs H.U.D.A. etc.

Gurmez Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others