Dismissed¶¶25

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2025CWP/17030/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

expunction of adverse ACR remarks 1998-99; compulsory retirement at age 55; Rule 9.18(2) Punjab Police Rules 1934; Haryana Police Constable; representation appeal revision mercy petition not maintainable; mala fide reporting officer; limited judicial interference in ACR; Dharamvir Singh v. State of Haryana CWP-20171-2010 order dated 14.07.2025; pension 50% of last drawn salary; liberty to move appropriate application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed by common order, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within three months from the date of the order, if cause survives; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶25

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner's ACR for the period 1998-99 ought to be expunged. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

It would not be appropriate at this stage to direct the respondent to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of 1998-99; the scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on record disclosing mala fide intention on the part of the reporting officer.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-20171-2010, Dharamvir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others.ratio¶¶23
The challenge to the compulsory retirement order was not accepted: by the common operative order both writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within three months if cause survives.ratio¶¶25
Observation that, had the impugned orders not been passed, the petitioner would have worked for three more years; his service being pensionable, he must have received pension which is 50% of last drawn salary, though he had not worked during that period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Jagmohan Bansal, J.), by common order dated 03.09.2025, disposed of two writ petitions by a former Haryana Police Constable (joined 1974): CWP-17030-2002 seeking expunction of adverse ACR remarks for 1998-99 (conveyed 30.09.1999; representation, appeal, revision and mercy petition having failed), and CWP-9-2003 seeking quashing of his compulsory retirement order dated 24.12.2002 retiring him at age 55 under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Held: scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited; nothing on record disclosed mala fide intention of the reporting officer; the case is squarely covered by this Court's order dated 14.07.2025 in CWP-20171-2010 (Dharamvir Singh v. State of Haryana). The Court observed the petitioner would otherwise have served three more years and, service being pensionable, would receive pension of 50% of last drawn salary. Petitions dismissed with liberty to move an appropriate application within three months if cause survives; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

346-1 Date of Decision: 03.09.2025

¶4

1. CWP-17030-2002

¶5

SURESH KUMAR ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents

¶8

2. CWP-9-2003

¶9

SURESH KUMAR ...Petitioner Versus

¶10

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶12

Present:None for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana

¶14

¶15

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

By this common order both writ petitions are disposed of.

¶17

In CWP-17030-2002, the petitioner is seeking direction to expunge adverse remarks in ACR for the period 1998-99 and in CWP-92003 seeking quashing of compulsory retirement order dated 24.12.2002. 3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable in 1974. He was conveyed adverse ACRs remarks for the period of 1998-99 on 30.09.1999. He filed representation as well as preferred appeal and revision before authorities but to no avail. The mercy petition was dismissed in 2002 being not maintainable.

¶18

The respondent by impugned notice/order retired the

¶19

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-17030-2002

¶21

-2-

¶22

petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. The said order was passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana. The impugned order was passed in 2002. Had the impugned orders not been passed, the petitioner would have worked for three more years. He was part of Haryana Police Force and his service was pensionable, thus, he must have received pension which is 50% of last drawn salary. He had not worked during said period.

¶23

At this stage, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent to expunge adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of 1998-99. Scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited. There is nothing on record disclosing that there was mala fide intention on the part of reporting officer. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-20171-2010 titled as

¶24

‘Dharamvir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others’ .

¶25