On September 15, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a landmark ruling in Dr. Shiva Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Another, setting aside the compulsory retirement of District and Sessions Judge Dr. Shiva Sharma. The Court held that the adverse remarks made against him by former High Court judge Justice Alok Singh were baseless, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry concluded that Dr. Sharma, who had consistently received “Good” or “Very Good” performance evaluations during his 30-year judicial career, was wrongfully forced into retirement in 2011 on the basis of unverified and mala fide remarks.
This ruling not only reinstates Dr. Sharma’s dignity but also raises serious questions about the process of recording Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), judicial accountability, and the safeguards against misuse of administrative discretion within the judiciary.
Background of the Case
- Dr. Shiva Sharma joined judicial service in 1981 and served for three decades without any adverse record.
- Throughout his career, he was consistently rated as a competent and upright officer, with “Good” and “Very Good” remarks in his ACRs.
- However, in the last five months of the appraisal year 2010–2011, Justice Alok Singh, then the Administrative Judge of Sirsa district, entered adverse remarks in Sharma’s ACR.
- Justice Singh categorized Sharma as belonging to the “doubtful category”, stating that he enjoyed “one of the worst possible reputations” and allegedly indulged in discriminatory practices while recording ACRs of subordinate judicial officers.
- Based on these remarks, the High Court recommended compulsory retirement, leading to Dr. Sharma’s removal in 2011 at the age of 58, just two years short of the retirement age.
- Dr. Sharma challenged the decision in 2012, leading to the present judgment after more than a decade of litigation.
Court’s Findings
The Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly criticized the process by which adverse remarks were recorded and acted upon. Key observations include:
- Lack of Evidence or Inquiry:
- The Court noted that Justice Alok Singh did not rely on any written complaints, verified material, or formal inquiry before recording negative remarks.
- The remarks were founded on “unsubstantiated material or allegations.”
- Violation of Wednesbury Principle:
- The Court invoked the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, holding that “no man of ordinary prudence” would have taken such a decision without supporting evidence.
- It called the decision “abhorrent to the Wednesbury principle.”
- Sudden Fall from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Doubtful Integrity’:
- The Bench found it “difficult to comprehend” how an officer rated “Very Good” in 2009–2010 could suddenly be branded as having “doubtful integrity” within a span of a few months.
- This raised suspicions of mala fides in law on the part of Justice Singh.
- Ignoring Promotion and Past Record:
- The Court emphasized that earlier adverse remarks, which had become inconsequential after Sharma’s promotion to District Judge, were improperly taken into account.
- A consistent record of 30 years could not be undone by arbitrary remarks in the final months of service.
- Failure of Competent Authority:
- The authority recommending compulsory retirement failed to identify the mala fide nature of the remarks and acted mechanically.
Judgment and Relief Granted
The Division Bench allowed Dr. Sharma’s petition, ruling that his compulsory retirement was unlawful. The Court ordered:
- Setting aside of compulsory retirement (2011 order quashed).
- Restoration of consequential benefits, including:
- Notional seniority,
- Pay fixation,
- Pension fixation, and
- Payment of arrears of pension.
- The only exception was that arrears of salary for the period out of service would not be granted.
This decision effectively restores Dr. Sharma’s honor and financial entitlements, correcting an injustice that deprived him of his service benefits for over a decade.
Legal Principles Involved
The ruling touches upon several important legal principles:
- Natural Justice: An officer cannot be condemned without being heard. Justice Singh failed to provide Sharma an opportunity to respond to allegations.
- Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Administrative decisions lacking rational basis or founded on irrelevant considerations are liable to be struck down.
- Mala Fide in Law: Even if not personally motivated, an action is mala fide if it is legally arbitrary and unjustifiable.
- Service Jurisprudence: ACRs are critical for career progression and retirement decisions. They must be fair, objective, and evidence-based.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Judicial Accountability within the Judiciary
The case highlights the dangers of unchecked administrative powers within the judiciary itself. While judges hold immense authority over the careers of subordinate judicial officers, such powers must be exercised with transparency and fairness.
2. Safeguards for Judicial Officers
The judgment strengthens safeguards for judicial officers, ensuring that baseless allegations cannot derail a long and meritorious career.
3. Message to Competent Authorities
The ruling serves as a reminder that recommending authorities must carefully scrutinize adverse remarks before acting on them. Blind reliance can lead to grave injustice.
4. Precedent for Service Law Cases
This case may become a reference point in service jurisprudence, especially for challenges to compulsory retirement, adverse ACRs, and arbitrary administrative decisions.
Representation in the Case
- For Dr. Shiva Sharma: Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana with Advocate Arav Gupta.
- For the High Court: Senior Advocate Sumeet Mahajan, Advocates Shruti Singla and Balpreet K Sidhu.
- For the State of Haryana: Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan.
Broader Implications
The judgment is not just about one officer’s retirement but about restoring faith in the judiciary’s internal processes. It reminds judges that their administrative powers must adhere to the same standards of fairness and legality that they demand from other institutions.
In an era where judicial independence and accountability are being widely debated, this ruling reinforces that accountability begins at home.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in favor of Dr. Shiva Sharma underscores the judiciary’s commitment to correcting its own errors and ensuring fairness in service matters. By setting aside a wrongful compulsory retirement, the Court has reaffirmed that integrity, evidence, and fairness must guide administrative actions within the judiciary.
For judicial officers across India, this judgment offers hope that arbitrary actions cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. For the public, it reinforces confidence that the principles of natural justice and rule of law continue to serve as the bedrock of India’s judicial system.
Also Read
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions To Ensure Humane Conditions In Beggars’ Homes Across India
