JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

CM-996-CWP-2026

1. This is an application for placing on record the judgment dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-7).

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexure P-7 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-22733-2026

Prayer

3. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.07.2025/01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner’s services were dispensed with by the respondents and a direction to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits.

Brief Facts

4. The petitioner was appointed as Drugs Control Officer on the recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Krishan Kumar, vide appointment letter dated 10.08.2023, and joined service on 25.08.2023. He was posted at Charkhi Dadri on 12.12.2023.

5. On 15.05.2025, an FIR No. 16 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 7 & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2) & 308(2) BNS. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, vide order dated 02.07.2025, wherein it was prima facie observed that no direct recovery was effected from him.

6. Relying solely upon the registration of the said FIR, and during the pendency of investigation, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 19.07.2025/01.08.2025/01.08.2025 with retrospective effect from 15.05.2025, invoking Rule 10(2)(a) of the relevant Service Rules. The present writ petition was filed on 03.08.2025 challenging the said termination order.

7. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has been discharged by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-7), which has been placed on record vide application no. CM-996-CWP-2026.

Contentions

On behalf of Petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 19.07.2025/01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) dispensing with the petitioner’s services is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, as the same is founded solely on the registration of an FIR, without any finding of guilt or even filing of challan at the relevant time. It is submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to terminate the services of a probationer, particularly when the action is stigmatic in nature.

9. It is further argued that the petitioner had an unblemished service record, his Confidential Reports for the relevant years were graded “Very Good”, and he was awarded an appreciation certificate for excellent performance, which clearly demonstrates that the termination is not based on unsuitability or lack of performance.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail, recorded a prima facie finding that there was no direct recovery from the petitioner, and during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been discharged by the competent criminal court, rendering the very basis of the termination non-existent.

11. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order dated 19.07.2025/01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) be quashed being punitive in nature, passed without holding any departmental inquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice.

On behalf of Respondents

12. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on a provisional/conditional basis and was still on probation at the time of termination. In terms of Rule 10(2)(a) of the Haryana Food and Drugs Administration Department Subordinate Offices (Group-B) Service Rules, 2018 and the conditions of appointment, the competent authority was fully empowered to dispense with the services of the petitioner during the probation period.

13. It is contended that a serious criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act wa