IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Balkar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. Reply by way of affidavit dated 17.02.2026 of Balraj Singh, P.P.S. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Amritsar Rural filed on behalf of respondent-State is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of letters whereby office of respondent No.4-Accountant General (A&E), Punjab has asked office of respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala to resubmit his case along with ‘No Judicial Proceeding Pending Certificate.’ He is further seeking release of regular pension and gratuity.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Police on 12.05.1986. He rose through the ranks. He superannuated holding the post of Inspector on 30.09.2024. He was implicated in FIR No.161 dated 27.07.2020 under Section 221 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur and FIR No.66 dated 20.05.2022 under Section 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Hargobindpur. The Pension Payment Order was authorized by competent authority on 16.08.2024. The investigating agency filed cancellation report in both FIRs. The petitioner was served summoning order dated 03.06.2024 passed by trial Court in FIR No.161 dated 27.07.2020. The said order has been kept in abeyance vide order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 11.08.2025 submitted that petitioner was found innocent in both the aforesaid FIRs. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 09.06.2025 returned his pension papers for want of ‘No Judicial Proceeding Pending Certificate’.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court in Suresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana, CWP No.15069 of 2019. The petitioner was found innocent by Investigating Officer, however, trial Court summoned him under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. He has filed petition against summoning order before this Court which has stayed further proceedings before the trial Court. Thus, as on day, no case is pending against him.

5. Learned State counsel submits that judgment cited by the petitioner is inapplicable because petitioner retired on 30.09.2024 and he was summoned by trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2024. He was summoned by trial Court before the date of retirement, thus, judicial proceedings as contemplated by Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Service Rules (for short ‘Rules’) were pending against him. He could not be released gratuity though he has already been granted 100% provisional pension, GPF and leave encashment. The respondent has withheld only gratuity which is permissible as per Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) and 9.14(c) of the Rules.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. The respondent has withheld gratuity relying upon Rule 2.2(b), 2.2 (c) and 9.14 of Punjab Civil Services Rules which for the ready reference are reproduced as:

“Rule. 2.2(b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: -

Provided that-

(1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retire