CWP-20304-2026 -1- 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20304-2026 Date of Decision :10.07.2026 KULWINDER SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a speaking order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P-9), has been put to challenge, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for treating his suspension period as a regular service period, instead of leave of kind due, was declined. He has also challenged the office order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby, suspension period of the petitioner, has been treated as leave of kind due. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him and has also been paid full salary for the period of suspension, the DHARAM VIR 2026.07.14 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20304-2026 -2- said period ought to have been regularised. However, the competent authority has declined to grant the said benefit. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and finds no merit in the instant petition, for the reason that the petitioner was placed under suspension as he had misbehaved with the Headmaster of Government High School, Punawala, Dhuri, Sangrur, by assaulting him, and for that criminal act, an FIR No.0331, dated 19.10.2020, under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of IPC, was got registered by him in his personal capacity. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P-2) by the authority concerned. However, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked upon quashing of aforesaid FIR, on the basis of compromise, and the petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duties subsequently. 4. In the instant matter, the suspension of the petitioner was not on account of discharge of any official duty, requiring the authority concerned, to regularise the suspension period. Rather, it is the petitioner's own act and conduct, which led to registration of FIR (supra) at the instance of aforesaid Headmaster in his personal capacity, who is a third person. Merely because the complainant subsequently entered into a compromise, resulting in the quashing of the FIR, does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim regularisation of the suspension period. Therefore, the authority concerned, have committed no illegality in treating the period of suspension as leave of the kind due. DHARAM VIR 2026.07.14 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20304-2026 -3- 5. Accordingly, the instant petition, is hereby, dismissed. 6. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 10, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes Whether Reportable. : Yes DHARAM VIR 2026.07.14 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document