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

Date of Decision: 17.10.2025 Jugraj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. On 16.10.2025, the following order was passed:

“The petitioner through instant petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of: -

i. order dated 25.08.2009 whereby he was awarded punishment of reduction of one rank (from Head Constable to Constable);

ii. order dated 22.01.2010 whereby Appellate Authority awarded him punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with permanent effect;

iii. orders dated 23.06.2011 and 24.08.2012 whereby his appeals were dismissed; and iv. order dated 15.05.2013 and 11.06.2014 whereby his mercy appeals were dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 16.04.1982. He was promoted as Head Constable on 01.08.1992 and at the time of filing petition, was holding rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was subjected to punishment of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect vide order dated 19.07.2005 on account of preparation of wrong verification report. He, in terms of Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was served notice dated 12.05.2009 by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana (for short ‘DIG’) proposing higher punishment than awarded by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon vide order dated 19.07.2012. The DIG vide order dated 25.08.2009 awarded him punishment of reduction in rank. The petitioner was reduced from the rank of Head Constable to Constable. He preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.01.2010 set aside punishment of reduction of rank, however, awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with permanent effect. It was observed that petitioner had no mala fide intention in changing the original report and was forced to do so on the direction of SI Dilawar Singh and Head Clerk Balram Sharma. He presented representation before Director General of Police, Punjab who dismissed the same vide order dated 14.07.2010. He filed mercy petition before the Government which came to be dismissed vide order dated

11.06.2014.

3. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon was reviewed after three years. No limitation period has been prescribed under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, however, no quasi-judicial order can be reviewed after reasonable period of limitation which depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

4. Learned State counsel seeks time to assist the Court.

5. Adjourned to 17.10.2025.”

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner has passed away and as per his information, his children are staying out of country. He has no instructions from legal representatives. The petition may be disposed of subject to liberty to move an appropriate application if cause survives.

3. Disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within one year from today, if cause survives.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

17.10.2025

Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No