IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.05.2026 Saroop Singh and another ….Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-21), passed by respondent No.3 whereby claim of the petitioners seeking challenge to their termination orders dated 09.08.2003 (Annexure P-6)

and 18.08.2003 (Annexure P-7), has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners were appointed as ETT Teachers vide appointment order dated 24.12.2001. However, their services were terminated during the period of probation, vide orders dated 09.08.2003 and 18.08.2003 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) on the ground that their original qualification certificates/degrees, upon verification from Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, Bihar, were found to be fake.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, petitioner No.1 filed an appeal dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure P-8) against the order of termination dated 09.08.2003. On the same set of allegations, FIR No.49 dated 17.09.2003 under Sections 465/468/470/471/420 IPC at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi was registered against petitioner No.1 and FIR No.127 dated 16.04.2003 under Sections 198/420/468/471 IPC at Police Station City, Gurdaspur was registered against petitioner No.2 and other similarly situated persons. Petitioner No.1 was convicted vide judgment and order dated 03.06.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal, which was accepted and he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-9), passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Whereas, petitioner No.2 was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-9A), passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, petitioners filed CWP-3709 of 2012 – Saroop Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, challenging their orders of termination dated 09.08.2003 and 18.08.2003, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2014, by recording the following findings: -

“As far as the contention of the petitioners that the appeals filed by them immediately after their services were dispensed with should have been considered and decided is merely to be noticed and rejected for the reason that in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal)

Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'), under Rule 15, an appeal lies against an order imposing any of the penalty, specified in Rule 5. Rule 5 thereof defines minor and major penalties. Explanation (vii)(b) thereto provides that dispensing with the services of an employee during or on completion of period of probation is not treated as one of the penalty imposed under the Rule. Once that is so, to state that an appeal is maintainable against the order dispensing with the services of the petitioners during the period of probation is totally misconceived. No direction as such can be issued to the authorities to consider and dispose of such an appeal. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order was by way of punishment is also to be noticed and rejected as the Rules clearly define that this shall not be considered as a punishment under Rule 5.

As far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, his services were dispensed with on 9.8.2003. The criminal case was also registered against him on 17.9.2003. Though he was initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate on 3.6.2009, however, subsequently his appeal was accepted by learned Sessions Judge on 27.10.2009. The writ petit