Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by a District and Sessions Judge, Haryana (‘petitioner’) challenging the order of his compulsory retirement in public interest passed by the Governor of the State of Haryana on the recommendations of this High Court, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu CJ*. And Sanjiv Berry J. criticized the Administrative Judge’s decision and opined that the order was vitiated by illegality, impropriety and malice. Accordingly, the Court overturned the compulsory retirement and ordered that the petitioner be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Background
In May 1981, the petitioner was appointed as member of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and joined as Subordinate Judge Third Class-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class, now known as Civil Judge (Junior Division). During 1986-1997, he was promoted to Additional Senior Subordinate Judge and also to Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (Senior Division) at various junctures.
Further, in July 1997, the petitioner was promoted as Additional District Judge and was posted as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurugram. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension during May 2003 and May 2004 and then he was reinstated on revocation of suspension, and the period of suspension was treated to be spent on duty. The contemplated disciplinary proceedings were dropped by the High Court and in 2009, he was designated as District & Sessions Judge.
In the Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 2003-2004, it was specified that petitioner was an efficient officer but sometimes he committed serious errors on account of negligence. For 2010-2011, the ACR on capacity of management, leadership, initiative, planning and decision making, specified that the petitioner was unable to manage or lead and was incapable of taking initiatives. It was also stated that his interpersonal relationships were not good enough. His general reputation amongst the bar, public and officers’ fraternity was not good as there were many complaints against him by the members of the Bar and public.
Regarding the adverse remarks, the petitioner preferred a representation which was placed before the Committee concerned, but it was rejected. The Full Court in its meeting maintained the grading in the ACR of 2010-2011 as ‘C-Doubtful Integrity’.
Analysis and Decision
The Court pointed that right from the petitioner’s initial appointment till the appraisal year, he had earned ACR gradings of either average or good during the initial six years but thereafter, except for one or two years, he had always been graded as good or very good which is why he was found suitable for promotion from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in 1997. The Court opined that the abovementioned promotion rendered all the adverse remarks prior to such promotion insignificant and inconsequential.
Further, the Court stated that his promotion in 2009 reinforced the contention that nothing adverse worth the mention was found prior to such designation, as the promotion to the designation of District & Sessions Judge from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge involved not only scrutiny of ACRs but also interaction of the officer concerned with the Selection Committee comprising of Senior Sitting Judges of this Court.
The Court opined that it was difficult to comprehend that an officer who had no adverse remarks in his entire career spanning 30 years, behaved and conducted himself in such a manner that it compelled the Administrative Judge concerned to categorize him from very Good in 2009-10, down to C- doubtful integrity in 2010-2011. Further, the Court opined that the adverse effect of suspension and the contemplated disciplinary proceedings became non-existent for all purposes as they were revoked and dropped respectively.
The Court held that all the adverse remarks written in the last five months of the appraisal year 2010-2011 were not based on any written complaints or verified material or any overt or covert inquiry, but on unsubstantiated allegations. The Court opined that the then Administrative Judge should have conducted a covert vigilance inquiry, asking for the response of the petitioner and if such an inquiry revealed some prima facie material of petitioner having committed misconduct, then proper course should have initiated a regular inquiry, after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The Court emphasized that none of these steps were adopted, instead, a short-cut method was adopted by declaring the petitioner unfit to be retained in service at the age of 58 years, by way of compulsory retirement in public interest.
The Court held that an order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is not a punishment, but the same must be issued only after due application of mind to the relevant material and evidence available on record. The Court further stated that while assessing an officer to be entitled or not, the Competent Authority concerned must scrutinize the entire service records of the officer right from the initial appointment up to the last appraisal year, with more emphasis on the performance in the last few years of service.
The Court pointed that it was well settled principle of service jurisprudence that while applying its mind on the question of compulsory retirement in public interest, the authority should ensure that only relevant material necessary for taking the crucial decision was considered, while the irrelevant material was discarded.
The Court stated that in the present case, it was evident from the record that the irrelevant material of earlier adverse remarks of the ACRs was also considered, which had become inconsequential because the petitioner was subsequently promoted. Further, the Court stated that the irrelevant material of the adverse remarks in the last five months of the ACR for the appraisal year 2010-2011, recorded by the then Administrative Judge were further taken into account, by ignoring the fact that an officer who had earned ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ remarks throughout his entire service career of 30 years, could not overnight become bad to the extent of rendering his ‘Integrity Doubtful’.
The Court opined that that the impugned decision was abhorrent to the Wednesbury Principle because no man of ordinary prudence could have taken such a decision. The Court held that the competent authority concerned in all probability did not notice the element of malafide in law, which became palpable especially on the part of the Administrative Judge, who recorded adverse remarks in the last five months of the ACR of petitioner for the appraisal year 2010-2011.
Therefore, the Court set aside the order passed by the Governor of Haryana, on the recommendations of the High Court and observed that it was vitiated by illegality, impropriety and malice. Further, the Court ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including notional seniority, pay fixation, fixation of pension, payment of arrears of pension, except payment of arrears of salary for the period, he remained out of service.
[Shiva Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7883, decided on 15-9-2025]
*Judgment authored by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate (Arguing Counsel) and Arav Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate (Arguing Counsel), Shruti Singla, Advocate, Balpreet K. Sidhu, Advocate and Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana