Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 --
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:05.09.2025
1. CWP No. 26295 of 2025 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 2.
CWP-26297 of 2025 Mustaq Masih vs. State of Punjab and others 3.
CWP- 26300 of 2025 Paramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
By this common order, CWP No. 26295 of 2025, CWP No. 26297 of 2025 and CWP No. 26300 of 2025 are hereby adjudicated as common questions of law and facts are involved. With the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP No. 26295 of 2025. 2.
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of: (i) Order dated 16.06.2021 whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two years' service with
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 -- cumulative effect for annual increments and it was further held that he would not be entitled to any allowance except already received during the period of suspension: (ii) Order dated 06.09.2023 whereby respondent No.5 dismissed his appeal; and (iii) Order dated 10.10.2023 whereby respondent No.2 dismissed his revision.
3.
The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 05.09.1993. He was promoted as Head Constable on 07.04.2010. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 15.05.2021. While he was posted in CIA Staff, an FIR No. 98 dated 06.07.2018, under Sections 384, 385, 34 of IPC came to be registered against him at Police Station, E-Division, Amritsar. The said FIR was registered on the statement of Shish Ram to the effect that he was engaged in selling toys near Gurudwara Shri Baba Atal Rai Sahab Ji. The petitioner and his two companions extorted a sum of Rs.23,000/- from him by threatening and alleging that he was engaged in purchasing stolen mobiles in the garb of toys. Three officials including petitioner were implicated. The respondent initiated departmental proceedings.
The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of alleged offence. The Disciplinary Authority issued him show cause notice dated 30.12.2020 to which petitioner filed reply. The Disciplinary Authority awarded him punishment of forfeiture of two years' service with cumulative effect for annual increments. It was further ordered that no further allowances would be payable for the suspension period. The petitioner came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 27.04.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 -- Appellate Authority assailing order dated 16.06.2021. The Appellate Authority rejected his appeal. He preferred further appeal before DGP who vide order dated 10.10.2023 dismissed the same. As per Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 1 Part-I Chapter VII, a suspended employee is entitled to full pay and allowance if he is reinstated upon exoneration. 4.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate submits that entire case of Department was based upon statement of Shish Ram. He appeared before Trial Court as well as Enquiry Officer. He confirmed his signature on the complaint, however, did not identify petitioner as the same person who had snatched money from him. He has further deposed that he has signed on blank papers. He had disclosed name on the asking of someone. Despite said statement, the petitioner was declared guilty in the departmental proceedings and awarded punishment of forfeiture of two years service with cumulative effect for annual increments. He has been acquitted by Trial Court, thus, he is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension. He remained under suspension from 14.07.2018 to 13.11.2018. During the said period he was paid 50% of his salary. He is entitled to 100% of his salary. The punishment order is also liable to be set aside. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6.
From the perusal of record, it comes out that an FIR under Section 384, 385 and 34 of IPC was registered against three police officials including the petitioner. The FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of Shish Ram. He in his complaint specifically disclosed that three police officials in civil dress have snatched a sum of Rs. 23,000/- from him. The said amount was snatched threatening and alleging that he was engaged in
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 -- selling stolen mobiles in the garb of toys. Shish Ram twisted his statement before Enquiry Officer as well as Trial Court. He did not depose that no incident at all took place. He confirmed that a sum of Rs. 23,000/- was snatched from him by three persons. He stated that petitioners were not the same persons who had snatched money and he can identify police officials who had actually snatched. The said statement proves that Shish Ram had confirmed even during enquiry that three police officials had snatched Rs. 23,000/- from him. There is nothing on record disclosing that there was enmity between Shish Ram and three police officials. It is well known fact that it is not an easy task to get registered an FIR against police officials. The FIR must have been registered under compelling circumstances and nothing is on record disclosing that any higher police officer had grudge against the petitioner and he hatched a conspiracy against the petitioners. 7.
The petitioner was placed under suspension for only four months. He was paid 50% of his salary as subsistence allowance. He was subjected to minimum punishment of forfeiture of two years service with cumulative effect. He has been acquitted by Trial Court as complainant turned hostile. All the authorities i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police have formed same opinion. There seems no factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.
8.
!
" #
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 --
$
"
%
&
#
%%
% &
'
( $ )%
*
% #
%
#
&
+
# "
, (
! " #
$#% &&
%
$ -%
'(' #
( $ ( ( (
!) *
+' %%
./$
!
%
%
%%
%
%
%
%
% !
%
0./ &
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 --
%
&
$
%
%
&
% %
1#
!
$
%
#
%
$
23
%
%
% 4
%
%
%
&
!
%
&
& #
%
%
&
!
& & %
!
%
!
%
% #
%
%
&%
&
%
%
!
% &
%
&
!
%
%
&
CWP No. 26295 of 2025 --
%
& % &
%
%
%
& &$
%
%
!
% %
%
!
%
#
!
#
%
!
% &
%
%
$
%
11.
The petitioner is claiming benefit of Rule 7.3 of Civil Services Rules. The benefit of said Rule is not available to petitioner because he was acquitted by Trial Court as complainant turned hostile and he has not been exonerated by Departmental Authorities, thus, he is not entitled to benefit of said Rule. He was rightly paid 50% salary during the suspension period as subsistence allowance.
12.
In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 05.09.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
Yes