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

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 Karambir ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

****

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 dated 20.08.2019 whereby his services were dispensed with.

2. On 12.09.2019, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Mr. Deepak Sonak, inter alia, submits that in pursuance of advertisement No.3 of 2018 caused by the Haryana Staff selection Commission form for filling up posts of Constable (Male), petitioner submitted application form (Annexure P-1) under General Category and along with aforementioned application also submitted attestation form and against column No.13 disclosed particulars of FIR No.0069 dated 07.02.2018 registered in Police Station Tosham as well as factum of arrest. Petitioner in the selection process was selected and issued Constabulary No. 1/389. However, without compliance of principles of natural justice, vide impugned order dated 20.08.2019 by relying upon Rule 12.18 (3) (b) of Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015, his services have been dispensed with. The aforementioned provisions in stricto senso would not apply, which pertain to issuance of appointment letter but in the present case constabulary number has already been allotted to the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 04.12.2019.

Notice regarding stay.

In the meantime, as an interim arrangement/provisionally, petitioner is permitted to undergo training, however, result of same shall be subject to final outcome of writ petition.”

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner honestly and bonafidely disclosed factum of FIR in the application form as well as attestation-cum-verification form. Charges were framed on 26.07.2018 and FIR was quashed by this Court on 20.05.2022 on the basis of compromise. Petitioner joined service on 07.03.2019 and was discharged on 20.08.2019. In view of interim orders of this Court, he is still working with the department.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was exonerated on the basis of compromise. This Court has quashed FIR on the basis of compromise, thus, petitioner cannot take benefit of dropping of FIR. It does not amount to acquittal. He cannot take benefit of Rule 12.18(3)(c) of PPR. At the time of verification, he was facing charge involving moral turpitude.

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

6. Indubitably, the petitioner is working with respondent since March’ 2019 though on the basis of interim orders of this Court. His services were dispensed with on account of aforesaid FIR. The respondent is claiming that petitioner cannot be retained despite quashing of FIR because FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise and it did not amount to acquittal.

7. Rule 12.16 of PPR prescribes procedure for direct recruitment. Sub-Rule (4) provides that if an FIR is lodged or is pending against a candidate, he shall not be treated eligible for application, if charges are framed against him. Rule 12.16 (4) of PPR reads as: -

“Rule 12.16 Procedure for direct recruitment:-

(1) XXXX XXXX XXXX (2) XXXX XXXX XXXX (3) XXXX XXXX XXXX (4) Applications:-

(a) If an F.I.R. is lodged/is pending against a candidate, he shall not be treated eligible for application, if charges are framed against him.

(b) Applications with prescribed fee shall be received online. The information submitted online by the candidates shall be final.

(c) Roll number shall be allotted to the eligible candidates and put on the official website of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Once the roll numbers are allotted, the candidate shall be able to generate to join the process of selection.”

8. Ru