IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

108 CWP-28988-2025 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 Amit Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction setting aside of order dated 18.08.2025 whereby his claim has been rejected. He is further seeking direction to respondent to allow him to join on the post of Male Constable (General Duty).

2. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No.4/2020 dated 30.12.2020, applied for the post of Male Constable (General Duty). During the pendency of the selection process, he came to be implicated in FIR No.235 dated 11.08.2021, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) registered at Police Station Sadar Mohindergarh, District Mohindergarh. He cleared all the stages. He filed verification-cum- attestation form as per Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’). He disclosed factum of aforesaid FIR in said form. The competent authority vide letter dated

12.10.2023 sought information from District Attorney concerned regarding present status of the aforesaid FIR. Superintendent of Police and District Attorney vide letter dated 16.10.2023 and 19.10.2023 intimated competent authority that final report has already been filed and trial is pending at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. He was acquitted vide judgment dated 03.05.2025. The Trial Court has held that version of the complainant is totally hearsay and there is no evidence against the petitioner. He vide letter dated 01.07.2025 requested the respondent to permit him to join. The respondent relying upon Rule 12.18(3) (c) of PPR vide order dated

18.08.2025 has rejected his representation.

3. Short reply by way of affidavit dated 11.11.2025 of Sh. Vinod Kumar, I.P.S, Commandant, 4^th Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, District Karnal, Haryana filed by respondent-State is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

4. Learned State counsel submits that as per Rule 12.18(3)(c) of PPR as well as WAN Message dated 27.09.2020, status of trial has to be seen as on date of verification. The verification was conducted on 13.09.2023 and on the said date trial was pending against the petitioner. As per rule 12.18(3)(c), acquittal could be considered had the petitioner been acquitted prior to date of verification of antecedents. The petitioner was acquitted subsequent to verification of antecedents, thus, Rule 12.18(3)(c)

did not come to his rescue.

5. On being asked, learned State counsel confirmed that petitioner was facing trial for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and 181 of MV Act and none of the aforesaid offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that no FIR was pending against the petitioner at the time of filing application. He cleared all the stages of examination. He was duly selected and permitted to join, however, during verification of antecedents, it was found that a criminal case was pending against him. It is apt to notice that he himself, in the attestation- cum-verification form, disclosed the factum of pending FIR. The respondent is right in claiming that clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) is applicable if applicant is acquitted or discharged prior to the date of verification. The petitioner was not acquitted prior to the date of verification, thus, clause (c) of Rule

12.18(3) was inapplicable.

8. Rule 12.16 of