Kuldeep Singh's appeal dismissed; Court emphasizes limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings
Chandigarh, August 3, 2026 - In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Namit Kumar, dismissed the writ petition filed by Kuldeep Singh, a Punjab Police official, challenging the disciplinary actions taken against him. The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that it cannot act as an appellate authority to reassess the evidence or the merits of the decision.
Kuldeep Singh, who had joined the Punjab Police in 1989 and was later promoted to Assistant Sub Inspector, faced disciplinary action for his alleged negligence during the police verification process for Arshdeep Singh Gill, a notorious gangster. The court found that due to the negligence of Singh and other police officials, Gill obtained a passport and subsequently continued his criminal activities abroad.
The departmental inquiry, which resulted in Singh's dismissal, was later modified to a forfeiture of five years of approved service for annual increments with permanent effect. Singh's appeal against this decision was rejected, leading to his filing of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Kumar, in his judgment, highlighted that the court's role in such matters is to ensure that the inquiry was conducted by competent authorities, following prescribed procedures, and adhering to principles of natural justice. The court underscored that it is not within its purview to re-evaluate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions of the disciplinary authority unless there is a clear violation of legal procedures or principles.
The court also addressed Singh's contention regarding his acquittal in a related criminal case, clarifying that departmental proceedings, which are based on the preponderance of probabilities, are distinct from criminal proceedings that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The subsequent acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, did not impact the findings of the departmental inquiry.
Furthermore, the court noted that Singh's petition suffered from misstatements and suppression of material facts, including the delayed filing of his revision petition. The judgment emphasized that approaching the court with clean hands is essential for seeking equitable relief.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition with costs, directing Singh to deposit Rs. 50,000 with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, highlighting the need for diligence and candor in legal proceedings.
Bottom Line :
Judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is limited to evaluating the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings, not the merits of the decision. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Punjab Police Rules 1934 Rule 16.3, Rule 16.5(2)
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2961178
