PARAMJEET KUMAR ALIAS PARAMJEET SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/22294/2025 · 2025-08-04
Jagmohan Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87264 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87264 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
`
CWP-22294-2025
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121
CWP-22294-2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 Paramjeet Kumar alias Paramjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 whereby he was ordered to be retired on the ground of adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report.
2.
The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on
20.03.1988. He, from time to time, was promoted to higher ranks. He at present is holding rank of Inspector. He has turned 55 years. The respondent by impugned notice has ordered to retire him. The impugned order/notice has been passed under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of PPR.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is stigmatic and in the teeth of judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed by this Court in a bunch of petitions including Civil Writ Petition No.2766 of 2025, Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others.
MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
order/judgment.
`
CWP-22294-2025
-2-
4.
On being confronted with impugned order and afore-cited
judgment, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who on advance notice is present in Court expressed her inability to controvert the fact that impugned order is stigmatic, however, submits that respondent may be granted liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
5.
In the wake of judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed by this Court in Naresh Kumar (supra), the impugned order deserves to be set at naught. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is hereby set aside with liberty to respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
6.
It is made clear that fresh order, if any, shall be passed in accordance with law.
7.
Disposed of in above terms.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE 04.08.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
order/judgment.