CWP-26066-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 113 CWP-26066-2025 Date of Decision: 03.09.2025 HARDAVINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. K.G. Chaudhry, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** 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 27.08.2025 whereby he has been ordered to be repatriated from Intelligence Cadre to Punjab Armed Police. 2. The petitioner joined as Constable in Punjab Armed Police on 01.03.2002. He was sent on deputation to Intelligence Wing on 08.09.2011. He has not been absorbed in Intelligence Wing though he is claiming absorption as per Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 2015. He has been ordered to be repatriated to his parent department by impugned order dated 27.08.2025. The impugned order has been passed under Rule 6(2) of 2015 Rules. The said Rule can be invoked in case work and conduct of the petitioner is not found satisfactory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without issuing show cause notice and granting DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26066-2025 -2- opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was not confronted with adverse material which compelled the respondent to repatriate him. The respondent passed similar orders in case of other employees. This Court has issued notice of motion and granted interim relief. The respondent has adopted pick and choose policy. The respondent was supposed to absorb the petitioner whereas he has been repatriated to Punjab Armed Police. 4. Learned State counsel, who on advance notice is present in Court, produced report of Special Director of Police, Internal Security, Punjab. Report is perused and returned to learned State counsel. 5. From the perusal of report, it is evident that respondent has considered act and conduct of the petitioner. There was adverse material on record which compelled the authorities to repatriate him. The petitioner cannot claim absorption as a matter of right. The authorities are not bound to grant opportunity of hearing before repatriating an employee whose conduct is found dissatisfactory. 6. In the wake of above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 03.09.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document