IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 SACHIN JOON ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated

09.04.2021 whereby his appointment was cancelled.

2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.8/2015 dated 19.07.2015 applied for the post of Constable. He cleared requisite tests and came to be selected. DGP, Haryana vide office memo dated 19.08.2020 recommended his name for allotment of constabulary number in 5^th Battalion, HAP Madhuban, Haryana. He was directed for medical examination from Government Hospital, Panipat. He filed attestation- cum-verification form disclosing that FIR No.255 dated 04.07.2009 under Sections 380, 420 and 454 IPC at PS Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar was registered against him. He was acquitted in said FIR. After completing medical examination, police verification was conducted. On verification of character and antecedents, SP Jhajjar vide letter dated 31.08.2020 intimated that aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and he was acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2012.

3. On receipt of aforesaid verification report, the respondent passed order dated 09.04.2021 whereby petitioner’s appointment letter was cancelled. The relevant extracts of order dated 09.04.2021 read as:-

“As per instructions issued by the State Government vide no. 1449-5 GSI-75/6324 dated 17/26.3.1975 and this office memo no. 7463-68/E(II)-1 dated 2.7.2007 and 13376-95/E(II)-1 dated 13.11.2007 the under Section 380, 420 and 454 IPC fall under the category of Moral Turpitude. Further, as per Rule 12.18 (3) (b) where charges have been framed against a candidate for offence (s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable with imprisoned of three years or more, shall also not be considered for appointment.

Thus, the present case is covered under Rule

12.18(3)(b) of Punjab Police Rules (Amended-2015) and as per the said Rules "Where charges have been framed against a candidate for offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, shall also not be considered for appointment".

In view of aforementioned circumstances of the case, the candidature of candidate Sh. Sachin Joon (Roll No. 1001233245 Adv. No. 8/2015) S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh R/o Vill. Deshal Pur, PO Nuna Majra, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District hajjar, Pin Code 124507 is hereby cancelled under Rules. I, pass an order accordingly.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-22424-2023 titled as “Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.”. He further submits that petitioner shall not claim backwages or other notional benefits. His date of joining may be treated as his date of appointment for all intents and purposes.

5. Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert applicability of aforesaid judgment to instant case, however, submits that petitioner faced criminal proceedings and charges were framed against him, thus, his appointment letter was rightly cancelled.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. This Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has adjudicated issue involved herein. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are reproduced as below:-

“8. From the conjoint reading of Rule 12.16(4) and 12.18(2), it is evident that it is mandatory to disclose factum of pending FIR if charges are framed against the candidate. If factum of FIR is not disclosed in the verification-cum-attestation form, candidature is outrightly liable to be cancelled. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12.18 further provides that if factu