LPA-3334-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 LPA-3334-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision :14.07.2026 ANGREJ SINGH ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. R. K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5707 of 2019 titled as ‘Angrej Singh versus State of Punjab and others’, by which, the order dated 20.01.2016, 03.10.2017, 25.07.2018, 21.11.2018, 09.03.2020 and 09.10.2020 dismissing the appellant from service along with the consequential orders passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the allegations of snatching one kilogram of gold from an employee of one Rakesh Kumar, the appellant has been exonerated by the competent Court qua the said allegations as was registered against him at Police Station City- II, Mansa being FIR No. 10 dated 20.01.2016, which has been quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement in service or, in the alternative, to the grant of pensionary benefits, keeping in view the total 30 years of service rendered RIYA 2026.07.20 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3334-2025 (O&M) -2- by him. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that the appellant was working as a constable with the Punjab police whose duty was to protect the citizens. The allegation against the appellant was that he had snatched one kilogram of gold from an employee of Rakesh Kumar. The said gold was recovered from the appellant after the registration of the FIR No. 10 dated 20.01.2016. Consequently, the departmental proceedings were initiated against him, wherein the aforesaid allegations levelled against the appellant stands proved which lead to the passing of the order of dismissing him from service on 20.01.2016. 5. The appellant preferred revision petitions, which were dismissed by the competent authorities. Qua the argument that FIR No. 10 dated 20.01.2016, registered at Police Station City-II, Mansa against the appellant, has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-5), it may be noticed that the said FIR was not quashed on merits but on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the appellant and the complainant. Thus, this shows that even after the registration of an FIR and recovery of the snatched gold from the appellant, the appellant ensured the quashing of the said FIR due to compromise. Once the said criminal proceedings could not attained finality due to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the said quashing of FIR cannot lead to mean that the appellant is innocent so as to grant him the benefit of reinstatement in service or pensionary benefits. 6. Rather, this Court is of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P- RIYA 2026.07.20 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3334-2025 (O&M) -3- 5) of quashing the FIR deserves to be recalled so that the police officials who have behaved in such a manner which is unknown to the police department should also face punishment prescribed under law rather than claiming the benefit of reinstating them in service so as to given them the pensionary benefits. 7. It may be noticed that initially, after addressing the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the present appeal. However, the post-lunch, a request was made to decide the appeal on merits. 8. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed with the payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost to be deposited with Prabh Aasra, (Unit of) u/o Universal Disabled Care Taker Social Welfare Society (who are maintaining Orphans) in Bank Account No.014894600000970, Yes Bank Branch, SCQ 151/152, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh or A/C No.100035657241 of Indusind Bank Sector 54 Phase II Mohali Branch by appellants. In case, appellants fails to deposit the same within four weeks from today, appropriate proceedings to recover the same be initiated including provisions of Contempt of Court. 10. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 14, 2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No RIYA 2026.07.20 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document