117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.01.2026 Rajinder Singh alias Fouji ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order bearing Endst. No. PAIC/HR/2024/89-92 dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 and the official order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and thereafter denied reinstatement and consequential service benefits including continuity of service and pay allowances from the date of his compulsory premature retirement till the date of his acquittal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner joined service on 10.02.1987 and rendered an unblemished service record, as no complaint was ever filed against him. He contends that a false case under the NDPS Act was planted upon the petitioner on 18.10.2013, leading to his suspension and subsequent compulsory premature retirement vide order dated 18.06.2015. He submits that the entire foundation of the retirement order was demolished when the petitioner was honourably acquitted by the learned Special Judge, vide judgment dated 27.07.2016. Despite making representations for reinstatement dated 07.10.2016 and 28.11.2016, the respondents failed to act, compelling the petitioner to file CWP No. 4210 of 2017. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 05.03.2024, directed the respondents to decide the representations, but the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 rejected the petitioner’s claim arbitrarily and in contravention of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (herein after PCS Rules). He further submits that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmade Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (SLP (C) No. 678 of 2021) and the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 1780 of 2019, which mandate reinstatement upon acquittal.

3. Per contra Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was prematurely retired under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, after he was arrested in FIR No. 322 dated 18.10.2013 under the NDPS Act and remained in judicial custody. He further submits that the petitioner accepted all his retiral dues, including gratuity and leave encashment amounting to Rs. 6,73,331/-, without any protest, thereby acquiescing to the retirement. He further contends that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted, he was merely given the benefit of doubt by the criminal court. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & ors., 2016 (3) SCT 794 he submits that an acquittal by granting benefit of doubt does not entitle an employee to reinstatement and consequential benefits. He asserts that the services of the petitioner were never terminated but he was compulsorily retired after receiving all dues, and the departmental action was independent of the criminal trial. Thus, the impugned order is legal, reasoned, and in accordance with settled law.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is very narrow. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, speaking through Justice Kurian Joseph, made the following observations in this regard:

“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an app