Randhir Singh Vs Staqte of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Randhir Singh Vs Staqte of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, convicted on 19.09.1974 and subsequently dismissed from service, is entitled to be treated as retired from service w.e.f. 07.10.1999 (the date he completed 58 years of age) and to release of consequential benefits. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition seeking treatment of the petitioner as retired from service w.e.f. 07.10.1999 with consequential benefits is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding his conviction and liability to dismissal under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the petitioner received salary/subsistence allowance from September 1974 to January 1994, i.e., until the Supreme Court dismissed the State's SLP on 03.01.1994.

Key takeaways

The petitioner had already received a substantive benefit and does not deserve any further benefit.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Jagmohan Bansal, J.), CWP-15884-2000 (O&M), decided 08.09.2025 — Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Randhir Singh seeking a direction to the State to treat him as retired from service w.e.f. 07.10.1999, the date he completed 58 years of age, and to release consequential benefits. Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on 19.09.1974 and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; dismissed from service on 23.08.1978; the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal on 07.11.1978 (placing him under suspension) solely because the appeal against conviction was pending before the High Court; after the High Court dismissed that appeal, the Disciplinary Authority again dismissed him on 28.05.1979. He underwent the full imprisonment and drew subsistence allowance from the date of suspension until the Supreme Court dismissed the State's SLP (against orders of this Court in Regular Second Appeal) on 03.01.1994. Held: although liable to dismissal under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 upon conviction, the petitioner had already received a substantive benefit — salary/subsistence allowance from September 1974 to January 1994 — and does not deserve any further benefit; petition dismissed.

203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-15884-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.09.2025

Randhir Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:Mr. Amrinder Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to treat him retired from service w.e.f. 07.10.1999 i.e. the date on which he completed 58 years of age and release consequential benefits.

The petitioner was convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1974. He was awarded sentence of 10 years. He came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 23.08.1978. He preferred an appeal against order of dismissal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.11.1978 set aside order dated 23.08.1978, however, he was ordered to be placed under suspension. The Appellate Authority set aside order of dismissal on the sole ground that appeal against conviction is pending before High Court. The Disciplinary Authority after dismissal of appeal by High Court vide order dated 28.05.1979 again dismissed him

from service.

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.09 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15884-2000 (O&M)

-2-

It is undisputed fact that petitioner was subjected to imprisonment of 10 years. He had undergone said imprisonment. He received subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension to date of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by State against orders passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 19.09.1974. As per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, he was liable to be dismissed from service. Despite conviction, he received subsistence allowance till the date of dismissal of SLP by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed on 03.01.1994 meaning thereby petitioner received salary/subsistence allowance from September’ 1974 to January’ 1994. The petitioner had already received a substantive benefit. He does not deserve any further benefit.

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

08.09.2025

Prince Chawla

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

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.09 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document