Police Constable Dismissed From Service But Reinstated Through Mercy Petition - Reinstatement Order Is Void Or Nullity In The Eye Of Law
Punjab and Haryana High Court rules that state authorities can rectify void orders, dismissing the petitioner's plea for reinstatement despite previous acquittal and mercy petition. Petitioner cannot take advantage of mistake of the authorities.
In a pivotal decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Kuldip Singh, a former police constable, challenging the recall of his reinstatement order. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal on September 11, 2025, underscores the authority of the state government to rectify mistakes in orders deemed void or nullity in the eyes of the law.
Kuldip Singh, who joined the Punjab Police as a constable in 1976 and was later promoted to head constable, faced dismissal from service on February 21, 1992, amid allegations of collusion with terrorists. Despite an acquittal by the trial court in 1993, his subsequent legal efforts to regain his position were thwarted. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed his petitions and appeals seeking reinstatement.
The controversy reignited when Singh was reinstated on December 25, 2001, following a mercy petition to the Punjab Government. However, the reinstatement was short-lived, as the authorities recalled the order on July 21, 2002, citing it as a mistake.
Representing Singh, Senior Advocate Atul Lakhanpal argued the recall violated principles of natural justice, asserting the authorities lacked the power to rescind the reinstatement. Conversely, State Counsel Chanchal K. Singla defended the recall, emphasizing compliance with prior court decisions that had dismissed Singh’s reinstatement plea.
Justice Bansal, after reviewing the case details, supported the state’s position. The judgment highlighted that Singh's reinstatement was contrary to existing court orders, thus constituting a legal nullity. The court affirmed the state's right to rectify such mistakes, preventing Singh from exploiting the error for personal gain.
The decision reinforces the principle that void orders can be corrected at any time, ensuring adherence to judicial rulings and maintaining the integrity of administrative actions. Singh's petition, along with any pending applications, was subsequently dismissed.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries within which governmental authorities operate and the judiciary's role in safeguarding these limits. It also underscores the importance of maintaining procedural rigor, even in cases involving personal appeals for mercy and clemency.
Kuldip Singh v. State Of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2780320
