Nirmaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

JAGMOHAN BANSAL  , J. (Oral)

¶1The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the   Constitution   of   India   is   seeking   setting   aside   of   order   dated

16.04.2021 (Annexure P-10) and order dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-11).

¶2The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 03.12.1993 in Punjab Armed Police. An FIR No.133 dated 11.06.2014 under Section 22 of NDPS Act, came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. On the one hand, the police after completing investigation filed its report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before   the   Trial   Court   and   on   the   other   hand,   the   departmental proceedings   came   to   be   initiated   against   the   petitioner.   The Commissioner   of   Police,   Ludhiana   vide   order   dated   11.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully   preferred   appeal   and   revision.   The   petitioner   faced criminal trial where he came to be acquitted vide judgment dated CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:003303

07.08.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. The Trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove effecting of   alleged   recovery   from   the   accused   beyond   shadow   of   doubt, consequently, he was acquitted of the charge for the benefit of doubt.

3.  Counsel for the petitioner submits as per Rule 16.2 read with

16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short "Punjab Police Rules"), the punishment awarded by departmental authorities needs to be reviewed in the light of judgment of acquittal.

4.  On being asked, Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab, expressed his inability to controvert the fact that original as well as appellate order was passed prior to judgment of acquittal and authorities have not reviewed case of the petitioner in the light of proviso to sub-rule

(2) of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules.

5.  Proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, mandates that in case conviction of a police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by government in this behalf. Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 provides that if a police officer is acquitted by criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case. Rules 16.2 and 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules are reproduced as below: "16.2.Dismissal.- (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the service of the offender and his claim to pension.Asgar Ali CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:003303

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed: Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal: Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping view the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf.

(3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental enquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the conviction and dismissal and its cause shall be published in the Police Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-employed elsewhere, a full descriptive roll, with particulars of the punishments, shall be sent for publication in the Police Gazette.

16.3. Action following on a judicial acquittal. -(1) When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court he shall be not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not, unless -

(a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds; or

(b) in the opinion of the Court or of the CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:003303 Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or

(c) the Court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or

(d) the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or

(e) additional evidence admissible under rule 16.25(1) in departmental proceedings is available.

(2) Departmental proceedings admissible under sub-rule (1) may be instituted against Lower Subordinates by the order of the Superintendent of Police but may be taken against Upper Subordinates only with the sanction of Deputy Inspector General of Police, and a police officer against whom such action is admissible shall not be deemed to have been honorably acquitted for the purpose of rule 7.3 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I." %.  #he   ac9uittal   fro1   cri1inal   proceedings   does   not auto1aticall8 entitle i11unit8 fro1 depart1ental action. A police officer 1a8  e su jected depart1ental punish1ent despite ac9uittal in cri1inal proceedings as per e+ceptions carved out in Rule "%.. of Punja  Police Rules, "0.). If ac9uittal is not  ased upon e+ceptions carved out in Rule "%.. of Punja  Police Rules, "0.), a police officer is entitled to i11unit8 fro1 depart1ental action.

¶72ro1 the reading of proviso to su ,rule *$- of Rule "%.$ ofAsgar Ali CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:003303 Punjab Police Rules, it is quite evident that in case of setting aside of conviction, the officer empowered to appoint is duty bound to review case of the police officer. The original as well as appellate order was passed prior to judgment of acquittal, thus, neither original nor appellate authority had advantage to look at findings of trial court.

¶8In the wake of above quoted rules, the appointing authorities are duty bound to review case of the petitioner. To cut short the litigation, instead of original authority, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to review case of the petitioner in the light of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2 read with Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules. The needful shall be done within six months from today.

¶9Disposed of in above terms. ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

11.01.2024 Ali

CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:003303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15636-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.01.2024 NIRMALJIT SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab. ****