Dismissed¶¶19

Mandip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2025CWP/8364/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-8364-2003 (O&M), Mandip Singh v. State of Punjab (decided 04.11.2025, Jagmohan Bansal, J., oral): reinstatement of discharged SPO acquitted of IPC offences (Ss. 384, 342, 511 and 382, 506) refused — temporary post, not covered by Punjab Police Rules/Punjab Civil Services Rules, 22-year delay, no existing SPO post; petition dismissed under Articles 226/227.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner worked as Special Police Officer (SPO) on a temporary basis and was governed neither by the Punjab Police Rules nor by the Punjab Civil Services Rules. ¶¶18

Mandip Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

375 CWP-8364-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.11.2025

¶3

MANDIP SINGH ...Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents

¶6

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶7

Present:Ms. Jasmine, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG Punjab

¶9

¶10

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to reinstate him and grant consequential benefits.

¶12

The petitioner joined Punjab Police as SPO in December’ 1992. He was implicated in FIR No.53 dated 01.05.2002 under Sections 384, 342 and 511 IPC registered at PS ‘B’ Division, Amritsar and again in FIR No.57 of 2001 under Sections 382, 506 IPC registered at PS Ram Bagh, Amritsar. He was issued show cause notice to which he filed reply. He was discharged from service. He came to be acquitted by trial Court. He made multiple representations requesting respondent to reinstate him.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent reinstated similarly situated employees. Claim of petitioner despite his

¶14

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-8364-2003 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

acquittal was not considered.

¶18

The petitioner was working as Special Police Officer ( SPO ). He was neither governed by Punjab Police Rules nor Punjab Civil Services Rules. He was holding said post on temporary basis. A period of 22 years has passed away. At this stage, it is neither appropriate nor desirable to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. Court is not oblivious of the fact that at present there is no post of SPO with Punjab Police.

¶19

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶21

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶22

November 04, 2025 Deepak DPA

¶23

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

¶24

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mandip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpartap Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot Vs State of Punjab and Another

Pyare Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others