IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CWP-23448-2017 Date of decision : 06.07.2026 Sarabjit Singh ….Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.S. Hira, D.A.G., Punjab. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service; order dated 02.08.2005 (Annexure P-2), whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissal order dated 27.10.2004 was dismissed; order dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), whereby an appeal filed by the mother of the petitioner (Smt. Daljit Kaur) seeking reinstatement of her son in service was filed; order dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P-5), whereby another appeal filed by the mother of the petitioner seeking reinstatement of the petitioner in service was dismissed; and memo dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-7) whereby representation of the petitioner against order of dismissal was rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23448-2017 2 the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits. 2. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as on the similar cause the petitioner had earlier approached the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit No.301 of 2011 titled as ‘Ex. Const. Sarabjit Vs. State of Punjab and others’ wherein the order of dismissal dated 27.10.2004 and appellate order dated 02.08.2005 were challenged, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the abovesaid fact. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Mittal, Environmental Engineer Vs. State of Haryana : 1996(4) SCT 219 has held that once a person has availed the remedy of Civil Court, he cannot turn around subsequently and say that the remedy by way of civil suit is not effective. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :- “7. The rule that the High Court will not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner is based on a sound principle of public policy, namely, that if the party approaching the High Court for issue of a writ can get similar relief by filing appeal, revision or civil suit, the extraordinary jurisdiction should not be exercised by the High Court. This also means that the High Court will not convert itself into a substitute of the civil courts and various statutory adjudicating bodies. In a given case a person aggrieved by the action of the State or its agencies may avail the remedy of civil suit thinking that he will be able to get effective relief from the competent civil court. VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23448-2017 3 Such person may also apply for grant of temporary injunction for protection of his rights. Once this course is adopted, it is not permissible for that person to give up the remedy of civil suit and approach the High Court merely because at a subsequent point of time he thinks that the proceedings in the civil court will last longer than the period which would be consumed in the decision of a writ filed for seeking similar relief. Once a person has chosen to seek remedy in a civil court, he cannot turn around subsequently and say that the remedy by way of civil suit is not effective. Often it is seen that civil suit is filed with an application for temporary injunctions because the party feels that it will be more convenient and easy to convince the civil court to pass an order of injunction than the High Court. However, when such party finds that the civil court is not inclined to grant injunction or the injunction application has been rejected, it moves an application for withdrawing the suit with the sole object of filing petition in the High Court on the same subject matter. At times an attempt is made to seek order of temporary injunction from the High Court after the civil court has declined similar relief. In some cases where order of temporary injunction is passed on an application filed along with the civil suit, the plaintiff-applicant feels that such an order will not be sustained by the appellate court and, therefore, he/she seeks withdrawal of the suit and then files writ in the High Court. This practice cannot in any manner be commended. Rather it deserves to be deprecated because it gives rise to an impression to the litigating public that if one cannot get temporary injunction from the civil court in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code then an attempt could be made to get such relief from the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. In our opinion, this Court VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23448-2017 4 will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in a case where the petitioner had earlier approached the civil court for grant of relief on the same subject matter or any issue directly related with the subject matter of writ petition. We are also of the opinion that it would be a sound exercise of discretion not to entertain a petition filed by a person who had earlier approached the civil court by filing a civil suit and who withdrew the same at a subsequent point of time when it was felt that civil court will not grant relief by way of temporary injunction or that the injunction granted by the civil court may not subsist for long. 8. In this case, the petitioner had earlier approached the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad and sought an injunction against his repatriation to the parent department. He successfully persuaded the learned trial court to pass an order of injunction. Subsequently, he withdrew the suit on an apparent realisation that the injunction order dated 19.4.1996 may prove to be short- lived. Having availed the remedy in the civil court thinking that he could get relief from such court, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the order dated 15.3.1996 and subsequent orders issued by Government regarding his repatriation to the parent department. 9. We do not want to make any such observation which may prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek relief from the civil court against the orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 but at the same time we cannot refrain from observing that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad did not at all apply his mind to the record of the case while passing order of injunction dated 19.4.1996. The grant of injunction by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad ignoring the fundamental objection raised by the respondent-Board to the maintainability of the suit, namely, that the State of Haryana and PWD (Public Health VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23448-2017 5 Department) were necessary parties to the suit cast serious reflection on the propriety of the order of injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge.” 5. Furthermore, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 27.10.2004 and his statutory appeal was rejected, vide order dated 02.08.2005 and the instant petition has been filed after a period of 12 years from the date of dismissal of his statutory appeal. 6. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed being not maintainable, as the same suffers from the vice of res-judicata, since the petitioner had already availed the remedy before the Civil Court and, having failed therein, and on account of delay, cannot maintain the present petition. 06.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document