P&H High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer | Relies On Adverse ACRs And Says Full Court Acted In Public Interest
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the writ petition challenging the petitioner’s compulsory retirement from judicial service. The Court upheld the recommendation of the Full Court and the subsequent government action, holding that the decision was taken in public interest and after due consideration of the petitioner’s entire service record. Finding no arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or lack of material, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
The petitioner joined the Punjab Superior Judicial Services in 1990 and served as an Additional District and Sessions Judge across various Sessions Divisions. During an inspection of the Sessions Division at Fatehgarh Sahib, the concerned Administrative Judge recorded adverse remarks about the petitioner’s judicial efficacy, professional competence, and integrity. These observations were subsequently incorporated into the inspection report and communicated to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a representation against the adverse remarks, which was declined. He then approached the Full Court of the High Court seeking a review. In the meantime, based on the recommendations of the Full Court in its meeting held on 14.05.1997, a proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings was communicated to the petitioner via letter dated 05.08.1997. A charge-sheet was later served but was ultimately dropped by the Full Court in its meeting held on 12.09.1997.
Subsequently, the petitioner was informed on 17.09.1997 that an adverse entry had been recorded against his integrity for the year 1996–97. Relying on his earlier exoneration, the petitioner requested expunction of the remarks, which was denied on 13.02.1998. Additional representations for removal of the adverse remarks also failed.
The inspection report for the year 1997–98 again carried adverse comments regarding his judicial performance. However, after consideration, these were modified to “Advisory”, and his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year was graded “Average”.
The petitioner made another representation through the Law Ministry, which was rejected by the High Court on 01.10.1999. While the Full Court had considered issuing a charge-sheet with major penalty, it ultimately chose to drop the charges and instead issued a recordable warning advising caution in future, as per communication dated 06.04.2000.
Later, the matter of the petitioner’s continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years was placed before the Full Court. On 21.09.2000, the Full Court recommended premature retirement “in the interest of justice.” By order dated 25.09.2000, the Registrar withdrew the petitioner’s judicial work. This was followed by the State of Punjab issuing a compulsory retirement order on 10.10.2000.
The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging (i) the Full Court’s recommendation dated 21.09.2000, (ii) the order of withdrawal of judicial work dated 25.09.2000, and (iii) the premature retirement order dated 10.10.2000.
The petitioner argued that since he had been exonerated of charges, the order was punitive and illegal. It was further submitted that the ACRs did not justify retirement and that the entire record ought to have been objectively reviewed. The respondents, however, contended that the decision was made in public interest, based on the petitioner’s overall service record and in accordance with settled law.
The Court recorded that the concept of “public interest” is inherently broad and lies within the exclusive authority of the competent body, whose subjective satisfaction on such matters is generally not open to judicial scrutiny. It noted that the scope for judicial intervention in these cases is limited, as a writ court is not expected to supplant its own assessment in place of the discretion vested in the authority responsible for determining whether an employee’s continuation in service aligns with the larger public good.
Upon examining the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), the Court found that his service record was not unblemished. The record revealed several adverse remarks made during his tenure. These remarks, it stated, were not confined to a single period but were spread over various years and made by different Administrative Judges.
The Court further noted that although the petitioner had earlier been charge-sheeted and the proceedings were later dropped, a recordable warning had still been issued, advising him to exercise caution in the future. It observed that the dropping of charges accompanied by such a warning did not, by itself, erase the underlying conduct or exonerate the petitioner of the related lapses.
The presence of adverse remarks, advisories, and warnings, according to the Court, could not be disregarded when considering the petitioner’s eligibility for continued service beyond the age of 55. These entries carried significance and could not be deemed irrelevant or obsolete for such an assessment.
In view of the adverse entries in the petitioner’s service record, the Court held that there was no presumption that the decision to compulsorily retire him was arbitrary, unreasonable, or tainted by mala fides. Based on the material presented, it concluded that the recommendations of the Full Court and the resulting orders were neither arbitrary nor actuated by improper motive. Instead, it found that the Full Court had carefully evaluated the petitioner’s entire service record and had acted within the limits of its lawful discretion.
The Court concluded that the decision of compulsory retirement was not arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no material. It stated that the discretion exercised by the Full Court and the resultant government order of retirement was within legal bounds. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.
“In view of the preceding ratiocination, the writ petition in hand is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate with Mr. Prabhsher Singh Walia, Advocate , Mr. Saurav Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Mehar Singh Rattu v. The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076431
Case Number: CWP-13664-2000 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel
[Read/Download order]
