IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Karan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Sukhvir Singh Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parveen Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of notice dated 30.09.2019 and order dated 24.12.2019 whereby he was retired on attaining the age of 55 years.

2. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, petitioner preferred CWP No.36877 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2025. In order dated 03.03.2025, it was noticed that a period of 5½ years has passed away from the impugned notice and the petitioner could serve maximum upto 58 years, thus, petition has rendered infructuous.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned notice as well as order was stigmatic. The respondent could not pass stigmatic order under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana). There is no adverse remark in h