Punjab and Haryana High Court | Compulsory Retirement of District Judge Quashed Under Punjab Civil Services Rules | Adverse ACR Remarks by Former Administrative Judge Found Unsubstantiated
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry quashed the compulsory retirement of District Judge Shiva Sharma, holding that the decision was tainted by unsupported adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report. The Court recorded that the remarks, made by then Administrative Judge Alok Singh for part of the 2010–2011 appraisal year, lacked any foundation in verified material, written complaints, or inquiry. Observing that the judge had consistently received “Good” and “Very Good” assessments over three decades of service, the Bench ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The dispute arose from an order of compulsory retirement issued against the petitioner, a judicial officer appointed in 1981 to the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch). He began his career as a Subordinate Judge Third Class-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class and over time held positions including Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional District Judge, and ultimately District and Sessions Judge.
The petitioner’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 1981 to 1987 recorded grades ranging from Average to Good. Between 1987 and 1997, the ACRs largely reflected a consistent record of “B Plus (Good),” with occasional “Average” gradings. He was promoted as Additional District Judge in 1997 and served as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurugram until 2000. From 1997 to 2003, his ACRs continued to show mostly “B Plus (Good).”
In 2003, the petitioner was placed under suspension, but reinstated in 2004, with the suspension period treated as duty and contemplated disciplinary proceedings dropped. Between 2004 and 2010, his ACRs ranged between “Good” and “Very Good.” In 2009, he was designated as District and Sessions Judge after a scrutiny process by a committee of senior judges.
The controversy arose over the ACR for 2010-2011, during which the Administrative Judge recorded remarks grading the petitioner as “C – Integrity Doubtful.” This entry cited complaints and alleged poor reputation, despite acknowledging the officer’s “Good” quality of judgments and “Very Good” quantity of work. The petitioner’s representation against these remarks was rejected by the Committee and the Full Court. Based on this record, the Governor of Haryana, on the High Court’s recommendation, passed an order of compulsory retirement at age 58 under Rule 5.32A(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I.
The petitioner challenged this decision, contending that his record over three decades had been consistently satisfactory, and that adverse remarks for a short five-month period could not justify compulsory retirement. He further argued that no substantiated complaints or inquiries were conducted to support the integrity-related findings.
The Court recorded that compulsory retirement is based on the principle of “weeding out the dead wood” and requires prominence on the officer’s overall service profile. It observed: “It is obvious that during the initial six years, he has earned ACR gradings of either Average or Good, but thereafter, except for one or two years, petitioner has always been graded as ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ right from 1987-1988 to 2009-2010.”
The Bench stated: “The petitioner was found suitable for promotion from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in July 1997, which renders all the earlier adverse remarks, if any, prior to such promotion insignificant and inconsequential.” It further recorded: “The petitioner was designated as District & Sessions Judge in 2009, which further reinforces the contention that nothing adverse worth the mention is found, prior to such designation.”
Regarding the 2010-2011 ACR, the Court noted: “It is 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, compelling the concerned Administrative Judge to categorise the petitioner from 'Very Good' in 2009-10, down to 'C' (doubtful integrity).”
The Court observed that adverse remarks were made only for the last five months of the appraisal year by the Administrative Judge who assumed charge in November 2010, stating: “All these 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 material/evidence/allegations.”
It recorded that: “The least which the then Administrative Judge ought to have done, is to conduct a covert vigilance inquiry, asking for the response of the petitioner. If such an inquiry would have revealed, some prima facie material of petitioner having committed misconduct, then proper course would have been to initiate a regular inquiry, after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. None of these steps were adopted.”
On the aspect of irrelevant material being considered, the Bench stated: “It is obvious from the record that the irrelevant material of earlier adverse remarks recorded in some of the ACRs was also taken into account, which had become inconsequential, on account of the petitioner having been subsequently promoted and designated through a selection process.”
The Court concluded that the decision failed the test of prudence: “No man of ordinary prudence can take such decision, and, therefore, the impugned decision assailed herein abhorrent to the Wednesbury principle. The Competent Authority in all probability did not notice the element of malafide in law, which became palpable in the present case.”
The Court directed: “In the conspectus of above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-15) of Compulsory Retirement of the petitioner in public interest at the age of 58 years is vitiated by illegality, impropriety and mala fide in law.”
“The order dated 05.09.2011 of Compulsory Retirement of the petitioner in public interest (Annexure P-15) passed by the Governor in the State of Haryana, on the recommendations of this High Court, under Rule 5.32A(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and rule 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I as applicable to the State of Haryana, is set-aside.”
“The petitioner is further 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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate, and Ms. Balpreet K. Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Case Title: Dr. Shiva Sharma vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:126771-DB
Case Number: CWP-24938-2012 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry
