Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders (dismissal order dated 17.12.2016, appellate orders dated 02.11.2017 and revision order dated 03.12.2019) set aside; Appellate Authority directed to pass fresh order in terms of Rule 16.3 of PPR; Court expressly reserved its opinion on merit.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the petitioners' subsequent acquittal, the impugned dismissal order dated 17.12.2016, appellate orders dated 02.11.2017 and revision order dated 03.12.2019 should be set aside and the case reconsidered by the Competent/Appellate Authority.

Court's answer

In the light of the orders passed in Bala Singh, Nirmaljit Singh and Dheeraj Kumar as well as Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the impugned orders are set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 16.3 of PPR.

Key takeaways

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the matter; the direction is confined to fresh consideration under Rule 16.3 of PPR.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-1258-2020) by Baldev Singh and another, dismissed from service without regular inquiry on account of implication in FIR No.297 dated 14.12.2016 (Sections 420, 406, 384, 182 and 120-B IPC, PS Parao, District Ambala) and subsequently acquitted by trial Court judgment dated 08.10.2024, seeking setting aside of the dismissal order dated 17.12.2016, appellate orders dated 02.11.2017 and revision order dated 03.12.2019. Confronted with judgments dated 02.04.2025 (Bala Singh, CWP No.18777 of 2023), 21.05.2025 (Nirmaljit Singh, CWP No.21304 of 2024) and 27.05.2025 (Dheeraj Kumar, CWP No.25411 of 2022), the Addl. A.G., Haryana conceded inability to controvert that per Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 the matter requires reconsideration by the Competent Authority. Acting on Rule 16.3 PPR and the said prior orders, Jagmohan Bansal, J. set aside the impugned orders, directed the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 16.3 PPR, expressly stating that no opinion had been expressed on merit, and disposed of the petition (decision dated 26.08.2025).

205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-1258-2020 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025

Baldev Singh and Another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of:-

(i) order dated 17.12.2016 whereby they were dismissed from service without holding regular inquiry;

(ii) Orders dated 02.11.2017 whereby appeal of petitioner No.1 was dismissed; and

(iii) Order dated 03.12.2019 whereby revision filed by them was also dismissed.

The petitioners were dismissed from service on account of their implication in FIR No.297 dated 14.12.2016 under Sections 420, 406, 384, 182 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Parao, District Ambala. They unsuccessfully preferred appeal as well as revision before authorities. They during the pendency of instant petition have been acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated 08.10.2024.

Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate submits that as per Rule 16.3 of

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1258-2020

-2-

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’), the case of petitioners needs to be reconsidered.

On being confronted with judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.18777 of 2023 titled as Bala Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others , judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed in CWP No.21304 of 2024 titled as Nirmaljit Singh Versus State of Punjab and Others and judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed in CWP No.25411 of 2022 titled as Dheeraj Kumar Versus State of Haryana and Others , Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana expressed his inability to controvert the fact that as per Rule 16.3 of PPR, matter needs to be reconsidered by the Competent Authority.

In the light of orders passed in Bala Singh (Supra), Nirmaljit Singh (Supra) and Dheeraj Kumar (Supra) as well as Rule 16.3 of PPR, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to pass fresh order in terms of Rule 16.3 of PPR. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit.

Disposed of in above terms .

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

26.08.2025

Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document