11 Feb 2021
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: CWP No. 19471 of 2020 (O&M)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2021-0014HaryanaJudgment 11 February 2021
Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. [name withheld] was appointed as a Haryana Police constable on 14 July 2008, FIR No. 189 dated the same day named him as an accused, and he was dismissed on 16 July 2008, with his departmental appeal and revision failing. After his acquittal in the criminal trial on 30 July 2019 he sought reinstatement, which was rejected. The High Court held Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules bars departmental punishment after a judicial acquittal but has no application where dismissal preceded the trial and only reinstatement is sought. The court held no rule provides for reinstatement upon acquittal and dismissed the writ, so the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 11 February 2021 in CWP No. 19471 of 2020 (O&M), the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Sudhir Mittal, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Haryana Police.
- Register number
- HR 00 CW 0003
- Case reference
- CWP No. 19471 of 2020 (O&M)
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Sudhir Mittal, J.), 11 February 2021
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Haryana Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Although the reason for rejection of the request for reinstatement may be erroneous, the order has to be upheld on the ground that there is no Rule providing for reinstatement upon acquittal in a criminal case.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 11 February 2021 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“Although the reason for rejection of the request for reinstatement may be erroneous, the order has to be upheld on the ground that there is no Rule providing for reinstatement upon acquittal in a criminal case.”
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.