High CourtsSingle Bench

Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 P&H CK 1821

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jagmohan Bansal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 37239 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 299 words

Jagmohan Bansal, J

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to decide his representation dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-6). He is further seeking directions to release salary and other benefits from the date of his suspension i.e. 17.06.2019.

2.

The petitioner was enrolled as Constable with Punjab Police Force on 30.12.1987. While attached as Driver with MLA, Parkash Chand, he was implicated in FIR No.38 dated 09.05.2015 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, Patiala on the allegations of recovery of 10 grams Smack. Departmental inquiry was initiated against him. He was suspended by Senior Superintendent of Police vide order dated 17.06.2019. He was convicted by Trial Court in aforementioned FIR vide judgment dated 20.07.2018. He preferred appeal before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 23.07.2024. He was acquitted from all the charges. He has filed representation seeking reinstatement in view of his acquittal by this Court. He has been reinstated without past salary and allowances. He has filed representation dated 14.07.2025 with Home Department seeking back wages.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner, at this stage, would be redressed, if respondents are directed to decide his representation dated 14.07.2025 in a time bound manner because he is going to retire in 2026.

4.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner has not placed on record copy of order whereby he was denied back wages. He further submits that respondent has already addressed petitioner’s representation dated 14.07.2025.

5.

Faced with afore-stated factual position, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law including petition before this Court.

6.

Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.