IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants Versus Balwinder Singh (through his legal representatives)

.....Respondents

1. Reserved on : 27.01.2026 2. Pronounced on : 03.02.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 03.02.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is : Full pronounced or full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full : Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by : Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab for the appellants.

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate and Mr. Hargun Sethi, Advocate for the LRs of respondent.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. The appellant-State has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.01.1994, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1991, passed by the learned Sub Judge, III Class, Ferozepur, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to as per their original position before the learned Trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was initially enrolled as Constable on 27.10.1981 in 13^th Battalion of Punjab Armed Police (for short, 'PAP'), Jalandhar, from where he was dismissed on 13.05.1986 on account of absence from duty. Thereafter, he was enrolled as a Constable on 28.10.1987 in Ferozepur Range, from where he was discharged from service on 03.09.1988 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'PPR'). The said order of discharge was challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a suit for declaration before the Civil Court at Ferozepur on 19.07.1989. The case set up by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit was that he had been discharged from service solely on account of the fact that he had not disclosed about his earlier dismissal at the time of his enrolment on 28.10.1987 in Ferozepur Range. The stand taken by the department before the Civil Court was that a secret letter dated 22.12.1987 had been received by them, wherein it was disclosed that prior to joining the Punjab Police, the respondent/plaintiff was previously dismissed from service in PAP. Consequently, a necessary enquiry was conducted by seeking information from the Commandant, PAP, 13^th Battalion, Jalandhar, and the enquiry was marked to DSP(D), Ferozepur. In the enquiry, it was found that the respondent/plaintiff had indeed been dismissed from his earlier service. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur applied for post-facto sanction under Rule 12.27 of PPR, for relisting of respondent/plaintiff. However, the said proposal was turned down by the Director General of Police, observing that instead of seeking post-fact sanction, a criminal case under Sections 417/420 of IPC was required to be registered against the respondent/plaintiff and further directed the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned to take action accordingly and ultimately, the respondent/plaintiff was discharged from service, vide order dated 03.09.1988 under Rule 12.21 of the PPR. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.1991 by relying upon a judgment of this Court in Punjab State through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh and another v. Joginder Singh, Ex-Constable : 1989(3) SLR 665 wherein the discharge under Rule 12.21 on account of absence was held to be not permissible. The learned Trial Court held that if the basis of the discharge of the respondent/plaintiff is his earlier dismissal from service, the same could have only been done after holding detailed enquiry under Rule 16.24 of PPR. The said judgment of the learned Trial Court was assailed by the State before the First Appellate Court,