Suresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** 346-1 Date of Decision: 03.09.2025

1. CWP-17030-2002 SURESH KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

...Respondents

2. CWP-9-2003 SURESH KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- None for the petitioner Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

By this common order both writ petitions are disposed of. 2.

In CWP-17030-2002, the petitioner is seeking direction to expunge adverse remarks in ACR for the period 1998-99 and in CWP-92003 seeking quashing of compulsory retirement order dated 24.12.2002. 3.

The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable in 1974. He was conveyed adverse ACRs remarks for the period of 1998-99 on 30.09.1999. He filed representation as well as preferred appeal and revision before authorities but to no avail. The mercy petition was dismissed in 2002 being not maintainable.

4.

The respondent by impugned notice/order retired the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17030-2002 -2petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. The said order was passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana. The impugned order was passed in 2002. Had the impugned orders not been passed, the petitioner would have worked for three more years. He was part of Haryana Police Force and his service was pensionable, thus, he must have received pension which is 50% of last drawn salary. He had not worked during said period. 5.

At this stage, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent to expunge adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of 1998-99. Scope of interference in ACR matters is very limited. There is nothing on record disclosing that there was mala fide intention on the part of reporting officer. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-20171-2010 titled as 'Dharamvir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others'. 6.

Dismissed with liberty to petitioner to move appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives. 7.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 03.09.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document