The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Mehar Singh Rattu, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, who challenged his compulsory retirement ordered in 2000. The decision, delivered on June 20, 2025, by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, upheld the Full Court's resolution which retired Rattu in public interest.
“The phrase ‘Public Interest’ is inherently broad and falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority, whose subjective satisfaction is not ordinarily subject to judicial review,” the bench noted.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL Against Justice Appointment, Citing Lack of Merit
Justice Sumeet Goel, writing the judgment, highlighted that the petitioner’s service record contained multiple adverse remarks, spanning over several years and issued by different Administrative Judges. These remarks included observations on judicial inefficiency, doubtful integrity, and below-average conduct.
The petitioner contended that since the charges against him were dropped and he was issued only a recordable warning, he stood exonerated. However, the Court disagreed.
“The mere fact of the petitioner having been charge-sheeted and the same having dropped but with a recordable warning does not ipso facto absolve the petitioner from delinquency thereof,” the Court held.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: No Liability on Insurer If Policy Cancelled Before Delivery Due to Non-Payment of Premium
The Court examined the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which showed adverse and advisory remarks for the years 1996-1998. While some remarks were later converted into advisory, the Court emphasized that such entries cannot be ignored when considering service continuation beyond 55 years.
“Adverse remarks or warnings cannot wash off such lapses so as to render them otiose,” the bench stated.
Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the retirement was punitive and based on an incomplete assessment of service records. The Court, however, referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Baikuntha Nath Das and Arun Kumar Gupta to reaffirm the legal standards governing compulsory retirement.
Read Also:- ED Withdraws Summons Issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal After Supreme Court Bar Body's Objection
It emphasized that judicial review in such cases is limited and only applicable in instances of arbitrariness or mala fide action. The Full Court had reviewed Rattu’s entire service history and found justification for his premature retirement.
“The Full Court, having duly considered the petitioner’s service record in its entirety, has exercised its discretion within the bounds of law,” the Court concluded.
The petition, including pending applications, was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Title: Mehar Singh Rattu v. The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court
