CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 1. CWP-22955-2022 (O&M) Jamail Khan ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) AND 2. CWP-22787-2022 (O&M) Azad Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate and Mr. Shayon Sen, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Teevar Sharma, DAG, Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CWP-22955-2022: Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, especially in the nature of issuance of Certiorari for quashing Order Dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P-9); whereby the Petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired, in gross violation to the instructions DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 2 of 8 issued by the State of Haryana, as being arbitrary, unjustified and against law. CWP-22787-2022: Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Order Dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-5); whereby the Petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired, in gross violation to the instructions issued by the State of Haryana, as being arbitrary, unjustified and against the law. 2. Both the above said Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues, and respondents involved in both the cases are identical/similar. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from CWP-22955-2022 titled as Jamail Khan vs. State of Haryana and others. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Bus Conductor in Haryana Roadways. Through his service career, he has maintained unblemished service record and discharged his duties with utmost diligence and hard work. 4. It is submitted that as the job of the petitioner requires dealing with cash and issuing tickets to the passengers. As such, some errors in calculation sometimes occur. Learned counsel submits that for every such miscalculation, penal recovery of 10 times the alleged embezzled amount DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 3 of 8 has already been made from the petitioner. Yet, in the ACRs of the petitioner for the said years i.e. 2017-2018 (Annexure P-1), 2018-2019 (Annexure P-2), 2019-2020 (Annexure P-3), adverse entries were made regarding the honesty and embezzlement cases against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel contends that the aforesaid action of the respondents in giving adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner is contrary to the Instructions dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure P-4) issued by the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Instructions’). As per the said Instructions the case of the petitioner falls under Category ‘A’ viz. “Regarding expected embezzlement and causing negligence and causing financial loss.” Learned counsel submits that for such alleged offences, it is clearly stipulated in the Instructions (at page 26 of the paper-book) that “On the basis of punishment given in such matters, no adverse remarks shall be made in the A.C.R. against the honesty of the employee.” It is submitted that therefore, impugned action of the respondents in making adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner are contrary to the own Instructions of the respondents and cannot sustain. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P-9) be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the petitioners have been prematurely retired at the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 4 of 8 age of 55. It is further submitted that the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners are misleading. It is pointed out that in the Instructions, there are 2 Categories of persons. The petitioner Jamail Khan (petitioner in CWP- 22955-2022), falls in Category ‘A’; whereas the petitioner-Azad Singh (petitioner in connected CWP-22787-2022) falls in Category ‘B’. 8. It is submitted that it may first be clarified that as per the Instructions, offences in Category ‘B’ are: “Conductor not issuing ticket after receiving the money from the Passengers, issuing old collected tickets and Re-issuing old tickets, misbehaving by Driver/Conductor with the checking staff etc." It is submitted that for the said offences, Departmental disciplinary action under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rule 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rule, 1987’) has to be taken. As such, no error can be found in the adverse entries made by the respondents in the case of petitioner-Azad Singh (petitioner in CWP-22787- 2022); wherein allegation against him was for issuance of old tickets and therefore, he fell under Category ‘B’. 9. It is submitted that even in respect of petitioner-Jamail Khan, contention of the petitioner that he fell in Category ‘A’ and therefore, adverse entry in ACR could not be made against him is misleading and is based on a piecemeal reading of above Instructions as departmental disciplinary action is envisaged even for employees falling under Category ‘A’. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 5 of 8 10. It is further submitted that petitioners have been prematurely retired in terms of Instructions dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure R-8). He, accordingly, prays that the impugned action suffers from no error and the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 12. The petitioner-Jamail Khan (petitioner in CWP-22955-2022), was charged with embezzlement of money/non-issuance of tickets on 3 occasions, the details of which are as under: - Sr. No. Year Amount 1. 2017-18 Rs 60, Rs 30, Rs 40, Rs 30, Rs 30, Rs 120 and Rs 40 (Total Rs 350/-) 2. 2018-19 Rs 120 and Rs 40 (Total Rs 160/-) 3. 2019-20 Rs 40/- 13. The details of the adverse entries made in the ACRs of Jamail Khan (petitioner in CWP-22955-2022), are as under: - Sr. No. Year ACR Remarks Integrity Assessment 1. 2017-18 Dishonest Average 2. 2018-19 Dishonest Below Average 3. 2019-20 Honest Average 14. Similarly, allegations against Azad Singh (petitioner in CWP- 22787-2022) contained in chargesheet dated 13.9.2017, are that “When the said vehicle was inspected at Derabassi, then it was found that you issued DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 6 of 8 old tickets to two passengers from Chandigarh to Nirvana after taking an amount of ₹320/-...……” The details of the adverse entries made in his ACRs are as follows:- Sr. No. Year ACR Remarks Integrity Assessment 1. 2014-15 Dishonest Below Average 2. 2016-17 Honest Below Average 3. 2017-18 Doubtful Average 15. The allegations against Jamail Khan of embezzlement fall in Category ‘A’ of the 2016 Instructions; and allegations against Azad Singh are of embezzlement as well as issuance of old tickets thereby falling in Category ‘B’. As regards petitioner-Azad Singh falling in Category ‘B’, there is no ambiguity with regard to the same as it is not disputed that for reissuing old tickets, departmental disciplinary action is liable to be taken under Rule 7 of Rule, 1987. Thus, no error can be found in the impugned action. It is also clear from the record that petitioners are repeat offenders and various cases of fraud have been registered against them. 16. As regards the petitioner-Jamail Khan, it is the contention of the petitioner that since allegation is of Category ‘A’, adverse entry could not have been made against the petitioner in terms of the Instructions (Annexure P-4). However, the said contention is redundant in view of Govt. Instructions No. 32/06/2018-4GSI dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure R-8) under which petitioners have been prematurely retired upon attaining the age of 55 years. The relevant extract of the said Govt. Instructions (Annexure R-8) reads as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 7 of 8 “Parameters for premature retirement or continuing in service:- It is not possible to specify the guidelines and manner in which the performance of a Government employee is to be assessed, since the requirements of a particular position occupied by a Government employee will only be known better to the Department concerned and these requirements will vary from one position to another. However, the parameters to be following by the competent authority based on the pronouncements of Supreme Court and High Courts are as under:- XXX XXX XXX (c) Service record of last 10 years should be taken into account and out of this 50% ACR in case of retention beyond 50 years and 70% ACRs in case of retention beyond 55 years or on completion of 25 years qualifying service, should be 'Good' or above. (d) A Government employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending but now decision has been taken and now no departmental/Vigilance enquiry is pending against him, may be considered for extension in service. (d) A Government employee whose integrity has been doubted during last ten years of service will be retired prematurely, however, the doubtful integrity during the period of service before last 10 years will be ignored.”. 17. Furthermore, Instructions dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure P-4) are issued by Director General, State Transport, Haryana; whereas Instructions dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure R-8) are issued by Haryana Government General Administration Department, Chief Secretary Office. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 22955 of 2022 (O&M) and 22787 of 2022 (O&M) 8 of 8 Hence, Instructions dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure R-8) will have primacy over the Instructions dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure P-4). Even otherwise, the Instructions dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure R-8) will be applicable being the latest one in the case of the petitioners. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. 19. Keeping in view the above noted undisputed, factual and legal position, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 20. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 20.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document