Can One Dubious ACR Erase 19 Years of Good Service? Punjab & Haryana High Court Says No, Quashes Judicial Officer’s Premature Retirement
Case Name: Baseshar Singh v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others
Date of Judgment: 26 May 2026
Citation: CWP-16957-2014
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a judicial officer with an otherwise unblemished service record spanning nearly two decades could not be prematurely retired solely on the basis of a single adverse ACR recording “Integrity Doubtful”, particularly when the remark was unsupported by any written complaint, vigilance inquiry, or substantiated material, and when the departmental proceedings arising from the same allegations had ultimately been dropped. The Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed in public interest.
Summary: The petitioner, a member of the Haryana Civil Judicial Service, challenged the order retiring him prematurely at the age of 50 years in public interest. He also assailed the consequential orders rejecting his representations against the decision.
The petitioner had joined the judicial service in 1995 and, over the years, earned regular promotions, eventually serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at different stages of his career. His service record consistently reflected “Satisfactory”, “Good” and “Very Good” gradings for nearly nineteen years. In fact, he had earned an “A – Very Good” grading in the year 2008-09 and a “B Plus (Good)” grading in 2009-10.
The controversy arose from the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1 November 2010 to 31 March 2011. During this five-month period, the Administrative Judge recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner, including observations that there were complaints from members of the Bar, a lack of trust and faith in his functioning, and an alleged habit of maintaining close relations with police officials. The petitioner was ultimately graded “C – Integrity Doubtful”. Notably, the ACR itself recorded that none of the complaints against him were substantiated by evidence.
The petitioner contended that the adverse grading stemmed from a note sent by a Judge hearing a Regular Second Appeal against one of his judicial orders. Based on that note, a departmental inquiry was initiated and the petitioner was suspended. However, after completion of the inquiry, the proceedings were dropped and the petitioner was merely warned to be careful in future.
Another significant circumstance noted by the Court was that the petitioner’s service record prior to the disputed ACR remained consistently positive. The chart reproduced in the judgment showed that from 1995-96 till 2009-10, the petitioner never received any adverse grading and consistently earned satisfactory, good or very good reports.
The Court also compared the petitioner’s ACR with that of another judicial officer posted in the same Sessions Division during the same period. Both officers had been subjected to substantially similar observations regarding complaints from members of the Bar and interactions with executive and police officers. However, while the petitioner was graded “C – Integrity Doubtful”, the other officer was awarded “B Plus (Good)”. This inconsistency weighed heavily with the Court.
Importantly, the Court found that no written complaint had ever been received against the petitioner during the relevant period. The adverse remarks were based merely on general allegations and perceptions rather than verified material. Moreover, the departmental inquiry initiated on the basis of the same concerns had ultimately been dropped.
The Division Bench relied extensively upon its earlier decision in Dr. Shiva Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where a similarly situated judicial officer from the same Sessions Division had been prematurely retired on the basis of adverse remarks recorded by the same Administrative Judge during the same appraisal period. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition against that judgment, thereby lending finality to the principles laid down therein.
Applying the reasoning from Dr. Shiva Sharma’s case, the Court observed that an officer who had earned “Good” and “Very Good” reports throughout his career could not suddenly be branded as a person of doubtful integrity based on unverified allegations recorded during a five-month period. The Court held that if concerns genuinely existed regarding integrity, the proper course would have been a vigilance inquiry or a regular disciplinary proceeding supported by evidence rather than reliance upon unsubstantiated remarks.
The Court concluded that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner suffered from illegality, impropriety and infirmity and could not be sustained in law.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 17 September 2013 prematurely retiring the petitioner from service in public interest. The Court directed that the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits, including notional seniority, pay fixation up to the date of superannuation, revision of pension, and arrears of pension. However, arrears of salary for the period during which he remained out of service were denied.