LPA-1281-2026 [1] In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [129] LPA-1281-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 EHC TEJPAL ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, Advocate for the appellant. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) 1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.19464 of 2019 by which the writ petition filed the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging his premature retirement has been dismissed. 2. The appellant belongs to Haryana Police Force and was holding rank of EHC (Driver). The Respondent in exercise of Power conferred by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and vide notice dated 29.05.2019 had ordered to retire appellant upon attainting the age of 55 years. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that without noticing total record of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant relief which is contrary to the settled principle of law, settled by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.24938 of 2012, titled as “Dr. Shiva Sharma Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another”, decided on 15.09.2025. Learned counsel further submits that hence the order passed merely on the basis of one report which was adverse, is incorrect ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1281-2026 [2] and,therefore, the order dated 12.07.2019(Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter Gurugram, retiring the appellant prematurely on attainting the age of 55 years may kindly be set aside. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 5. It is a settled principle of law that the records of the last 10 years is to be seen for deciding whether, the employee(s) should be retained for further service or he/she should be prematurely retired. 6. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that there is an adverse report against the appellant for the year 2013 which period is within 10 years from the date of retirement. Not only the adverse report has been recorded but even the integrity of the appellant has been doubted. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also concedes before this Court that the representation filed against the said ACR has already been dismissed and there is no further challenge to the same and copy of which annexed with the writ petition, the same stands conceded for the purpose of the present order. Such report is reproduced hereunder for handy reference. “Performance of ACT in Respect of Hcs/Consts of C-1, CII & UGC 1. Rank & No. Tejpal No.407/GGN 2. Rank E/HC 3. Period of Report 01.0413 to 03.09.13 4. Place of Posting 01.04.13 to 04.04.13-Suspender/PL 05.04.13 to 03.09.13-CP/Reserve _________________________________________________ 1. Discipline Indisciplined 2. Integrity Doubtful 3. Reliability Unreliable ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1281-2026 [3] 4. Moral Character Not Good 5. General Remarks An average official SD/- (Surinder Pal Singh) The then Dy. Commissioner of Police Hqrs, Gurgaon.” 8. Keeping in view the above, once the integrity has been found doubtful even one doubtful entry is good enough to prematurely retire an employee. 9. The reliance has been placed on the judgment in Dr. Shiva Sharma's case (supra) cannot be accepted, as there was no such adverse entry qua the doubtful entry. It may be noticed that in Dr. Shiva Sharma's case (supra), the 'doubtful integrity' was dealt with in para nos.2.7 and 2.8 which read as under:- “2.7 The remarks in regard to ‘Doubtful Integrity’ are that the petitioner enjoys one of the worst possible reputation. There are rampant complaints touching integrity of the Officer and the petitioner indulges in discrimination while recording remarks in the ACRs of Subordinate Judicial Officer. 2.8 However, a closer scrutiny of the ACRs for the period from 01.11.2010 to 31.03.2011, reveal that petitioner is caregorised as ‘Just efficient’, Quality of Judgment as ‘Good’, Quantity of Work as ‘Very Good’ based on having earned 160 units per month but unable to manage or lead and incapable to initiate. In interpersonal relationship also petitioner was categorized as not good enough and lacking cooperation and coordination of the Subordinate Officer” 10. It may be further noticed in the aforesaid judgment that the doubtful integrity was not accepted by the the Court on the ground that on the other parameters, he was found good, which is missing in the present case, as the ACR which has been reproduced hereinbefore clearly says that the present appellant is indisciplined, unreliable, moral character is not good and he is an average official with doubtful integrity. Hence, the judgment in Dr. Shiva Sharma's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1281-2026 [4] 11. Further, in the appeal the judgment can only be interfered with, in case the same is perverse either on fact or on the law and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove that the judgment of the learned Single judge is perverse. 12. No other arguments raised. 13. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE JULY 23, 2026 Anjal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document