CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Inspector Satwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 P&H CK 1110

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jagmohan Bansal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 352, 384 · Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7, 13
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 19214 Of 2021
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 · 350 words

Jagmohan Bansal, J

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to keep departmental proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 71 dated 31.07.2019, under Sections 384. 352, 120-B of IPC and Section 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, District Mohali.

2.

Mr. Akhil Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner submits that case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679. The foundation of trial as well as departmental proceedings is same, thus, unless and until he is found guilty by trial Court, he should not be departmentally punished.

3.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court after noticing judgment of Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s case (supra) has dismissed a bunch of petitions including CWP No.15845 of 2023. The aggrieved officials preferred intra court appeals including LPA No.1255 of 2024 and 1146 of 2024. The intra court appeals stand dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2024 and 08.05.2024.

4.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5.

It is undisputed fact that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions involving identical facts and issues. The judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench stands upheld by a Division Bench of this Court.

6.

In the wake of judgment dated 22.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1255 of 2024 titled as “Tulsi Dass vs. State of Haryana and others” and judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed in LPA No.1146 of 2024 titled as “ASI Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others”, it can be concluded that the respondent cannot travel beyond the police report, thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to petitioner, if he leads his defence in departmental proceedings. There is no substance in the apprehension expressed by the petitioner.

7.

Dismissed.