CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Balraj Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 P&H CK 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jagmohan Bansal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 342, 386, 506 · Police Act, 1861 — Section 17
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 7298 Of 2005 (O&M)
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

8 paragraphs · 332 words

Jagmohan Bansal, J

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 14.11.2003 whereby Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar has terminated his services.

2.

The petitioner is claiming that he was terminated by an order which is stigmatic in nature. He was terminated without holding any inquiry. The termination was against the principles of natural justice.

3.

As per reply, the petitioner was a habitual offender. He was implicated in FIR No.169 dated 23.12.1996 under Sections 386, 506, 342 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Division ‘A’, Amritsar. On checking by Station House Office, Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, petitioner was found having received money from a driver of one four-wheeler i.e. Tata 407 carrying a patient to Delhi. He was a Special Police Officer and subjected to suitability test in 1997, 2000, 2001 and 2002 for the post of Constable but was found unfit. In 2003, he was dismissed on account of misconduct. He was a temporary employee. His appointment was under Section 17 of Police Act, 1861 (for short ‘Police Act’). The respondent was not required to conduct departmental inquiry before passing order of termination.

4.

The petitioner was terminated in 2003. A period of more than 22 years has passed away. He was a temporary employee and appointed under Section 17 of Police Act. He was granted opportunities by way of further test for absorption as Constable. He was implicated in a criminal case while on duty. In these circumstances, petition deserves to be dismissed.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted Constabulary Number. He is trying to get information and may be granted liberty to file a fresh petition, if he succeeds in getting information confirming that he was allotted Constabulary Number prior to passing impugned order.

6.

The petition stands dismissed with aforesaid liberty.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.