##PAGE1##

CWP No.2462 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.2462 of 2026

Date of Decision:03.02.2026

Gurmeet Singh

….Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate

Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order whereby he was

dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 20.04.1999.

He remained absent from duty from 05.04.2008 to 28.06.2008 due to an

accident. He was issued show cause notice dated 18.09.2008 on account of

84 days unauthorised absence from duty. He was dismissed by respondent

vide order dated 19.11.2008. Period from 20.06.2008 to 21.08.2008 was

treated as suspension period. He preferred a spate of appeals before

Authorities. Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab dismissed his

appeal for reinstatement on 29.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was involved in an accident due to which he was admitted in Civil Hospital

Sangrur, Patiala. He was unconscious and suffered fractures. The

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 07:55:57 :::

CWP No.2462 of 2026 -2-

departmental inquiry was initiated without considering the facts and

circumstances of the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was dismissed

vide order dated 12.05.2004 on account of remaining absent from duty for

64 days. DIGP, Security, Punjab vide order dated 02.08.2005 reinstated him

in service. He was again dismissed from service vide order dated

17.11.2005 on account of absence from duty. He was again reinstated w.e.f.

10.09.2007 and punishment was reduced to withholding of two increments

with cumulative effect. He was third time dismissed from service vide order

dated 19.11.2008 on account of absence from duty. He was awarded three

more punishments on account of absence from duty. He remained absent

from duty for 662 days and his 14 years’ service was forfeited. He had

served for a very small period i.e. 8 years. He preferred appeal before DIG

against impugned dismissal order which was rejected vide order dated

05.05.2009. He filed second appeal before IGP which was dismissed vide

order dated 30.09.2009. He again filed appeal before ADGP which was

dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012 on the ground of maintainability. He

filed five appeals before DGP which came to be dismissed vide orders dated

02.12.2014, 17.05.2017, 05.06.2018, 20.11.2018 and 19.07.2021. He also

filed petitions before Home Department which were rejected vide orders

dated 03.10.2018, 29.02.2024, 04.03.2024 and 18.04.2024.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was third time dismissed from service vide order

dated 19.11.2008. His appeal was dismissed on 05.05.2009. He continued

to file appeals before higher authorities from 2009 to 2024. His all the

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 07:55:58 :::

CWP No.2462 of 2026 -3-

appeals were rejected. He was governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for

short “PPR”). In the PPR, there is no provision permitting repeated appeals.

A period of more than one and a half decade from the date of orders passed

by Appellate Authorities has passed away.

7. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High

Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who

moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches.

Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that

the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be

condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole

ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are

pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be

preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-