CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (1) IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CWP-10021-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Balwinder Siingh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. B.S.Seemer, Advocate, Adv ocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUUMAR, J. (Oral) CM-5329-CWWP-2026 Application is allowed as prayyed for and the judgment datedd 31.01.2026 ppassed by learned Additional Seessions Judge, Amritsar is takenn on record as AAnnexure P-11. CWP-10021 -2022 (O&M) 1. The present petition has beenn filed by the petitioner underr Articles 226//227 of the Constitution of Indiaa, seeking a writ of certiorari forr quashing thee impugned order dated 07.01.2 022 (Annexure P-8), as well ass order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), p assed by respondent No.4 andd recommendaation dated 17.03.2021 (Annexuure P-2) passed by respondentt No.5, wherebby the petitioner has been dismmissed from service by invokingg provisions uunder Article 311(2)(a) of the CConstitution of India read withh Rule 16.2 oof Punjab Police Rules, 1934, without considering his longg service. Furtther, a writ in the nature of manddamus has been sought directinggVIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (2)

the respondeent authorities to reconsider thhe punishment imposed by thee respondent aauthorities under Rule 16.32 off Punjab Police Rules, 1934 byy taking into coonsideration his service of more than 28 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitiooner submits that the petitionerr was dismisseed from service, vide order datted 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-3),, while invokiing the provisions of Article 3 11(2)(a) of the Constitution off India read wiith Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Polic e Rules, 1934. In the said orderr of dismissal,, there was reference of two crriminal cases i.e. (i) FIR No.13 dated 14.01 .2021 registered under Sectioons 307/427/148/149 IPC andd Sections 25 && 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar; and (ii)) a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e.. Criminal Coomplaint No.88/2010 dated 055.04.2010 titled as ‘Palwinderr Singh Vs. Baalwinder Singh’. Learned couunsel further submits that in thee proceedings arising out of the complaint undeer Section 138 of the Negotiablee Instruments AAct, the petitioner was convictedd and sentenced by the Court off learned Judiicial Magistrate Ist Class, AAmritsar, vide judgment datedd 01.12.2014, whereas FIR No.13 dated 14.01.2021 was still underr investigationn at the time when he was dismis sed from service.

3. Learned counsel for the peetitioner further submits that,, subsequentlyy, the petitioner has been acquuitted in both the cases, videe judgment daated 31.01.2026, passed by learnned Additional Sessions Judge,, Amritsar (Annnexure P-11) and vide judgmeent dated 09.02.2023 passed byy this Court inn CRR-1238-2020 titled as ‘BBalwinder Singh Vs. Palwinderr Singh’ (Annnexure P-9) respectively. In vview of the said developments,, learned counnsel for the petitioner submits tthat the petitioner is entitled too VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (3) seek reconsidderation of his dismissal from sservice. He, therefore, submitss that the petittioner may be permitted to withhdraw the present petition withh liberty to aapproach the competent autho rity by submitting a detailedd representatioon, which may be considered and decided in a time boundd manner. 4. Learned State counsel is not avverse to the contention raised byy learned counnsel for the petitioner. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn with libberty as prayed for. 6. If any such representation is subbmitted by the petitioner withinn four weeks frfrom today, the same shall be coonsidered and disposed of by thee competent auuthority, within a period of threee months thereafter, by passing aa speaking ordder after affording an opportunnity of personal hearing to thee petitioner. 7. Pending application, if any, stannds disposed of as well.

(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (1) IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CWP-10021-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Balwinder Siingh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. B.S.Seemer, Advocate, Adv ocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUUMAR, J. (Oral) CM-5329-CWWP-2026 Application is allowed as prayyed for and the judgment datedd 31.01.2026 ppassed by learned Additional Seessions Judge, Amritsar is takenn on record as AAnnexure P-11. CWP-10021 -2022 (O&M) 1. The present petition has beenn filed by the petitioner underr Articles 226//227 of the Constitution of Indiaa, seeking a writ of certiorari forr quashing thee impugned order dated 07.01.2 022 (Annexure P-8), as well ass order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), p assed by respondent No.4 andd recommendaation dated 17.03.2021 (Annexuure P-2) passed by respondentt No.5, wherebby the petitioner has been dismmissed from service by invokingg provisions uunder Article 311(2)(a) of the CConstitution of India read withh Rule 16.2 oof Punjab Police Rules, 1934, without considering his longg service. Furtther, a writ in the nature of manddamus has been sought directinggVIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (2)

the respondeent authorities to reconsider thhe punishment imposed by thee respondent aauthorities under Rule 16.32 off Punjab Police Rules, 1934 byy taking into coonsideration his service of more than 28 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitiooner submits that the petitionerr was dismisseed from service, vide order datted 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-3),, while invokiing the provisions of Article 3 11(2)(a) of the Constitution off India read wiith Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Polic e Rules, 1934. In the said orderr of dismissal,, there was reference of two crriminal cases i.e. (i) FIR No.13 dated 14.01 .2021 registered under Sectioons 307/427/148/149 IPC andd Sections 25 && 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar; and (ii)) a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e.. Criminal Coomplaint No.88/2010 dated 055.04.2010 titled as ‘Palwinderr Singh Vs. Baalwinder Singh’. Learned couunsel further submits that in thee proceedings arising out of the complaint undeer Section 138 of the Negotiablee Instruments AAct, the petitioner was convictedd and sentenced by the Court off learned Judiicial Magistrate Ist Class, AAmritsar, vide judgment datedd 01.12.2014, whereas FIR No.13 dated 14.01.2021 was still underr investigationn at the time when he was dismis sed from service.

3. Learned counsel for the peetitioner further submits that,, subsequentlyy, the petitioner has been acquuitted in both the cases, videe judgment daated 31.01.2026, passed by learnned Additional Sessions Judge,, Amritsar (Annnexure P-11) and vide judgmeent dated 09.02.2023 passed byy this Court inn CRR-1238-2020 titled as ‘BBalwinder Singh Vs. Palwinderr Singh’ (Annnexure P-9) respectively. In vview of the said developments,, learned counnsel for the petitioner submits tthat the petitioner is entitled too VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10021-2022 ((O&M) (3) seek reconsidderation of his dismissal from sservice. He, therefore, submitss that the petittioner may be permitted to withhdraw the present petition withh liberty to aapproach the competent autho rity by submitting a detailedd representatioon, which may be considered and decided in a time boundd manner. 4. Learned State counsel is not avverse to the contention raised byy learned counnsel for the petitioner. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn with libberty as prayed for. 6. If any such representation is subbmitted by the petitioner withinn four weeks frfrom today, the same shall be coonsidered and disposed of by thee competent auuthority, within a period of threee months thereafter, by passing aa speaking ordder after affording an opportunnity of personal hearing to thee petitioner. 7. Pending application, if any, stannds disposed of as well.

(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.