The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order of compulsory retirement passed against a former Additional District and Sessions Judge and observed that the adverse remarks or recordable warning cannot wash-off lapses to render them otiose for consideration of the Judicial Officer for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years.

The Petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the recommendation of the Full Court withdrawing Judicial work from the petitioner and consequential order issued by the Respondent State of Punjab whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired from service.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, “The mere factum, of the petitioner having been charge-sheeted and the same having dropped but with a recordable warning to the petitioner to remain careful in future, does not ipso facto absolve the petitioner from delinquency thereof. In other words, the adverse remarks or advisory or recordable warning made against the petitioner cannot wash-off such lapses so as to render them otiose for consideration of the petitioner for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. The presence of adverse remarks in ACRs negates any presumption that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was exercised in an arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide manner.”

Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia represented the Petitioner while Advocate Karminder Singh represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner, upon his induction into the Punjab Superior Judicial Services in the year 1990, served as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab on multiple postings across different Session Divisions. The concerned Administrative Judge, during inspection of Sessions Division at Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab), rendered adverse observations relating to the petitioner’s judicial efficacy, professional competence and integrity, which were subsequently added into the inspection report.

The petitioner was apprised of a proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, given recommendations of the Full Court. The petitioner was informed regarding the recording of an adverse entry, as regards his integrity, for the year 1996-97. The petitioner, relying upon his exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings, sought expunction of adverse remarks. However, the same was declined. In the inspection report for the year 1997-98, the adverse remarks were again recorded against the petitioner’s judicial functioning. However, the said remarks were subsequently classified as “Advisory”. The petitioner’s ACR (Annual Confidential Report) for the year 1997-98 came to be recorded as “Average”.

Upon the matter, about retention of the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years being placed before the Full Court, vide an order dated September 21, 2000, the premature retirement of the petitioner in the interest of justice was recommended for and the judicial work of the petitioner was directed to be withdrawn. The same came to be acted upon, and an order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner.

Reasoning

Considering the fact that the petitioner had been directed to undergo compulsory retirement in ‘Public Interest’, the Bench stated that the phrase ‘Public Interest’ is inherently broad and falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority, whose subjective satisfaction in this regard is not ordinarily subject to judicial review.

It was noticed that the service record of the petitioner reflected that there had been multiple adverse remarks against him during his service tenure. The said remarks were not only spread over different years of his service tenure but also had been recorded by different Administrative Judges.

Finding the recommendations made by the Full Court and resultant orders passed in pursuance thereof not to be arbitrary or laced with any mala fide, the Bench said, “ On the contrary, it emerges that the Full Court having duly considered the petitioner’s service record in its entirety, has exercised its discretion within the bounds of law. Ergo, the writ petition in hand deserves rejection.”

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Mehar Singh Rattu v. The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076431)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia, Advocate Ayush Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Karminder Singh, Prabhsher Singh Walia

Click here to read/download Order


Punjab and Haryana High CourtChief Justice Sheel NaguJustice Sumeet Goel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.