[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 January, 2026
CWP-37747-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 CWP-37747-2025
Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of suspension order dated
01.09.2015 (Annexure P-4) whereby the Battalion Commandant, Punjab
Home Guards, Amritsar has suspended him. He is further seeking
subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
2. The petitioner was enrolled as member of Punjab Home Guards
in 1992. He worked with the respondent as member of Home Guards till the
date of passing impugned order of suspension. For the ready reference, the
suspension order is reproduced as below: -
"In view of letter no.188 dated 18.08.2015, reminder
letter no. 191 dated 26.08.2015 issued by F Company, Punjab
Home Guards Ramdas and in view of the report sent vide this
office letter no. 2805 dated 27.08.2015 to the Divisional
Commandant, Punjab Home Guards, Jalandhar, Division
Jalandhar as well as in view of the order given to the
undersigned by the Divisional Commandant, Jalandhar on
telephone, since Guard No. 3676 Jaswinder Singh has been
1 of 4
arrested on 31.07.2015 and has been sent to Central Jail,
Amritsar, in view of the order passed by Sh. Ajit Attri, ASJ,
Amritsar under Section 452, 323, 506, 34 IPC, whereby he
was awarded sentence for one year and fine of Rs. 400/-, is
hereby removed from duty under suspension/temporary basis.
Sd/-
Battalion Commandant 3rd Battalion,
Punjab Home Guards, Amritsar"
3. The petitioner claims that he has not been paid subsistence
allowance during the suspension period. He was implicated in a complaint
case under Sections 452, 323, 506, 325, 427 & 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC'). He was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Amritsar vide order dated 30.09.2013. The conviction was upheld by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 05.08.2015. He was
suspended on 01.09.2025 on being lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar in the
light of upholding of conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar. Criminal Revision against said conviction is pending before this
Court. The sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated
17.08.2015 and he was released on bail. The petitioner claims that co-
accused ASI Baljinder Singh has been reinstated by Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar. He, on 05.02.2025, filed
application to set aside suspension order and reinstate him but to no avail.
His case is similar to the petitioners in Mahinder Ram v. Commandant
General, Punjab Home Guards and others, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2831
whereby petitioners therein have been granted subsistence allowance in the
light of more than 10 years continuous service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
never served copy of order of dismissal/discharge from service. He, as per
2 of 4
judgment dated 10.01.2025 of this Court in Mahinder Ram (supra), is
entitled to subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was
permitted to work during the pendency of trial. He was not allowed to work
after dismissal of his appeal against judgment of conviction by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He was paid full salary during the
pendency of trial as well as appeal before the Appellate Court. He cannot be
paid subsistence allowance at par with Mahinder Ram and others because
they were not convicted by Trial Court.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was
subjected to trial in a private complaint under Sections 323, 452, 506 & 34
of IPC. He was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar
vide order dated 30.09.2013. He preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2015 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He remained in service during the pendency of
trial before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar as well as appeal
before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He was discharged after
dismissal of his appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He
filed revision before this Court which is still pending, however, his sentence
has been suspended vide order dated 17.08.2015. He remained silent from
2015 to 2025 and filed application on 05.02.2025 seeking setting aside of
suspension order and his reinstatement. The petitioner was convicted by
Trial Court and his appeal stands dismissed. He was not a regular employee.
He cannot claim benefit of judgment of this Court in Mahinder Ram (supra)
3 of 4
because in the said case, petitioners were not convicted by Trial Court. This
Court cannot ask respondent to accommodate a convicted person.
8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.01.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
