Disclaimer: This case has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside show cause notice, that required him to explain why he should not be terminated from service for submitting a Freedom Fighter Certificate issued in his father’s favour , a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., held that the Freedom Fighter Certificate enclosed by the petitioner during recruitment was issued to his father. As per the terms and conditions, the benefit was available up to the grandson of a Freedom Fighter, and the petitioner being the great grandson, didn’t fall into the said category. Thus, the Court stated that it could not legalize such irregular or illegal acts.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that it was not oblivious of the fact that dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to him and his family, but sympathy or compassion could not substitute law.
Background
In November 2016, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Constable and came to be selected under the Freedom Fighter category. Subsequently, the respondents discovered that the petitioner’s great grandfather was a Freedom Fighter. As per the applicable terms and conditions, the benefit of the Freedom Fighter category could be extended only up to the grandson of a Freedom Fighter, and not to the great-grandson.
An inquiry was thereafter conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who reported that the Freedom Fighter Certificate submitted by the petitioner during the recruitment process had been issued in favour of his father. Based on this inquiry, the Director General of Police(‘DGP’), Punjab, directed the competent authorities to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing termination of service.
Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner challenged the same. The same was allowed with liberty to the competent authority to issue a fresh show cause notice uninfluenced by the earlier observations of the DGP or the Court. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Police, issued the impugned show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court.
On one hand, the petitioner contended that he was unaware regarding his ineligibility for reservation, thus, there was no fraud on his part, and on the other hand, the respondent argued that the irregularity, whether committed by the petitioner or the authorities, could not be cured merely on account of his having served for nine years.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that in the case at hand, it could not be concluded that there was fraud on the part of the petitioner. As per the Standing Order, he was supposed to file a freedom fighter certificate issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner. However, he produced a Certificate issued in favour of his father. Thus, there was a misrepresentation on his part. The Certificate could not be issued in his favour because reservation was available up to the grandson of a freedom fighter whereas petitioner was a great grandson of freedom fighter. There was a conceded lapse on the part of the Screening Committee.
Further, the Court stated that there could be connivance or negligence on the part of members of the Committee, however, there was no mechanism to delve into mental state of the members of the Screening Committee, thus, it could not be concluded that there was connivance or negligence on their part.
The Court stated that if the petitioner was permitted to continue only on the sole ground that he had completed nine years’ service, it would legalize his illegal act. It would prompt many other candidates to play such tactics and get a job. It was a matter of chance that his illegality was unearthed. If his illegality had not been unearthed, he would have remained in service. Thus, the Court held that it could not legalize irregular or illegal acts of the petitioner.
The Court emphasized that it was not oblivious of the fact that discharge/dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to him and his family. However, sympathy or compassion could not replace the law.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition at hand and directed that no past benefits availed or utilized by petitioner should be withdrawn.
[Chandandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 29141 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 19-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and Mona Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent: Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
Buy Constitution of India HERE
