Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2026CWP/4840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana; CWP No. 4840 of 2021(O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Jagmohan Bansal, J.; decided 12.01.2026; Exemptee ASI; premature retirement notice dated 09.01.2021 by SP Panipat; retirement effective 11.04.2021; retirement on attaining age 58 years; appeal dismissed on delay of six years; revision dismissed on delay and merits; condonation of delay refused; Punjab Police Rules Rule 16.24 contention; acquittal in FIR on 12.09.2013; withheld three increments; petition disposed of on joint statement of counsel; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petition stands disposed of in view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties. ¶¶31

Balkar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP No. 4840 of 2021(O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 4840 of 2021(O&M) Date of Decision:12.01.2026

Balkar Singh

….Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

On 07.04.2021, the following order was passed:-

¶15

“Petitioner-Balkar Singh (an Exemptee ASI), stated to be aged 55 years has filed the present writ petition inter alia with a prayer for setting aside the impugned orders dated 28.05.2012 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure P-5), dated 12.02.2019 passed by respondent No.3 (Anneuxre P-6) dismissing the appeal; with a further prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-10); along with further prayer to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to release the withheld three increments with all consequential benefits.

¶16

In the present case, notice of motion was issued for 25.03.2021. On 02.03.2021, this Court had also issued notice regarding stay.

¶17

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.01.12 05:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP No. 4840 of 2021(O&M) -2-

¶19

In the meantime, CM No. 5041 of 2021 has been filed by counsel for the petitioner to amend the writ petition and CM No.5418 of 2021 has been filed to explain the amendments sought to be made in the writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order dated 09.01.2021 passed by Superintendent of Police, Panipat, it has been ordered that the petitioner is served with the three months' premature retirement notice. It has been further stated in the order that after the expiry of the period of the said notice, he will be treated to have retired from service with effect from 11.04.2021.

¶21

In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that in the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 09.01.2021 (Annexure P-11) and also in passing the orders dated 11.04.2012 & 28.05.2012 (Annexures P-3 and P-5 respectively) the authorities have fallen to error both in facts and law. He submits that in the FIR (on the basis of which summary of charges were served), the petitioner has been acquitted on 12.09.2013. He secondly, submits that there has been violation of Rules 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules in initiating the departmental enquiry as the pre-condition that the competent authority would call the employee, has not been complied with. He thirdly, submits that the chargesheet has not been prepared and served upon the petitioner by the Competent Authority and it has only been prepared by the Enquiry Officer.

¶22

Fourthly, learned counsel submits that the said summary of charges has been prepared and served upon the petitioner on 13.02.2012 after the prosecution witnesses had submitted their statements. He submits that

¶23

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.01.12 05:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP No. 4840 of 2021(O&M) -3-

¶25

since the ACR for the period of 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 was categorised as 'adverse' only on account of lodging of the FIR, on account of acquittal of the petitioner, the ACR ought to have been upgraded by the authorities.

¶26

Let the respondents file the detailed reply to the writ petition with specific reply to the aforementioned contentions.

¶27

Adjourned to 14.10.2021.

¶28

In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 09.01.2021 whereby the authorities had decided to retire the petitioner with effect from 11.04.2021, shall remain stayed.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that petitioner has retired on attaining the age of 58 years, thus, his prayer qua impugned order dated 09.01.2021 has rendered infructuous.

¶30

Appeal of the petitioner qua punishment was dismissed on the ground of delay of six years. His revision was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. There was inordinate delay of six years in filing the appeal. This Court does not find any plausible reason to condone delay which occurred while filing appeal before Appellate Authority.

¶31

In view of statement of learned counsel for the parties, the petition stands disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶34

12.01.2026 paramjit

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable:	No

¶36

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.01.12 05:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Asha Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mukesh Vs State of Haryana

Kanika Verma and Others Vs Punjab University and Others

Rakhee and Ors. Vs Panjab University & Ors.