Doubtful Honesty and Not Reliable Are Not Mere Words—They Carry Administrative Weight: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Adverse ACR of Police Officer

“Judicial Review Cannot Substitute Administrative Evaluation Absent Mala Fides or Procedural Violation” –  On 29th September 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a meticulously reasoned judgment delivered by Justice Sudepti Sharma, dismissed Regular Second Appeal, filed by a Haryana Police officer Sushil Kumar, challenging adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2019–2020, which labelled him as “Not Reliable” and having “Doubtful Honesty.” The Court upheld the decision of the District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 12.07.2024, which had reversed the trial court’s decree favouring expungement.

The Court found that the adverse ACR entries were not only based on cogent material, including a departmental inquiry and viral video evidence, but were also sustained through due process, including multiple layers of representation and review. The High Court held that judicial interference with ACRs is unwarranted unless mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice is established—none of which were present in the instant case.

“An FIR Quashed on Compromise Does Not Cleanse the Administrative Misconduct” – Quashing of Criminal Case Does Not Invalidate ACR Findings

The appellant Sushil Kumar, a police official who joined the Haryana Police in 2000 and was promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector in 2019, approached the High Court after facing adverse ACR remarks for the year 2019–2020, which included categorical assessments such as:

“Honesty – Doubtful”
“Reliability – Not Reliable”
“General Performance – Below Average”

These remarks were based on a departmental inquiry stemming from allegations that the appellant had extended undue benefit to an accused person in FIR No. 373 of 2019, which was registered under Sections 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC. A viral video clip circulated on WhatsApp allegedly showed the appellant collecting money in connection with that very FIR. The inquiry led to multiple punishments, including stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, censure, and warnings, all of which were confirmed by departmental authorities upon appeal and revision.

Despite the FIR being subsequently quashed on compromise, the High Court held that this did not extinguish the administrative findings of misconduct, stating:

“So far as the quashing of the FIR by this Court on the basis of compromise is concerned, that does not wash out the conduct of the appellant, which can be seen from the whole record.”

“Administrative Discretion in ACR Evaluation is Sacrosanct Unless Shown to Be Arbitrary, Malafide, or Perverse”

The central legal issue was whether adverse ACR entries—particularly the labels “Doubtful Honesty” and “Not Reliable”—could be interfered with in judicial review, in light of the quashing of the criminal case and the officer’s past good service record.

Rejecting the plea for interference, Justice Sudepti Sharma held:

“There is nothing on record to show that principles of natural justice were not followed... There is nothing to show that the officers were biased against the appellant nor any evidence was led by the appellant to show the same.”

The Court observed that the appellant was not only duly informed about the adverse remarks but was also given an opportunity to represent his case, which was then dismissed via a reasoned order dated 21.08.2020.

In particular, the Court noted:“The ACR was duly communicated to the appellant, who represented to the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala… and after hearing him, representation was dismissed vide detailed order.”

Further, the Court emphasized that adverse ACR entries like “Doubtful Honesty” were not ornamental or casually used, but were administratively consequential, especially when supported by material such as video evidence, departmental inquiries, and prior service conduct

“Judicial Interference with ACRs is Not an Appeal on Merits—Courts Do Not Sit as Appellate Authorities Over Subjective Assessments”

Analysis of Service Record and ACR Justification

The High Court examined the appellant’s service history and found that the 2019–2020 ACR was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of disciplinary infractions, including:

• Censure for delays in processing verification reports;

• Warning for mishandling accident case documentation;

• Punishment for concealment of FIR in explosives case (later reduced on appeal);

• Departmental inquiry for granting undue benefit in FIR No. 373/2019;

• Multiple punishments including stoppage of five increments (later reduced to three).

The Court reproduced the adverse ACR entries in full and found:

“Against the column ‘Honesty’, the remarks are ‘Doubtful’, and against ‘Reliability’, the remarks are ‘Not Reliable’. In the category of report, remarks ‘Below Average Official’ are given.”

Having perused the entire service record, the Court concluded that: “A perusal of the record further shows that service record of the appellant throughout the year had been ‘Below Average’.”

Accordingly, the Court found no reason to expunge the adverse remarks, holding: “ACRs cannot be interfered with... The adverse remarks recorded are supported by documentary evidence, inquiry findings, and past conduct.”

No Expungement, No Interference

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Sharma concluded:

“I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, and the same is hereby upheld.”

The Court reaffirmed that disciplinary and performance evaluations are matters best left to the administrative authorities, and judicial review is limited in scope.

This decision serves as a clear precedent that:

• Quashing of criminal proceedings does not invalidate departmental findings;

• ACR entries based on material and inquiry are not open to casual judicial interference;

• Administrative discretion in evaluating honesty and reliability must be respected, unless malafides or procedural illegality is clearly established.

Date of Decision: 29th September 2025