Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041765
2024:PHHC:041765
CWP-7049-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123 CWP-7049-2024
Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
Jagir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, and
Mr. Gaurav, 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:-
i. order dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment of dismissal;
ii. order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) whereby Appellate Authority has dismissed appeal of the petitioner; and iii. order dated 03/04.08.2020 (Annexure P-3) whereby revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. iv. order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby second appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 05:54:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041765 2024:PHHC:041765 CWP-7049-2024 -2-
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector with respondent-department. An FIR No.16 dated 11.09.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance came to be registered against him as he was apprehended red-handed while accepting bribe of ₹10,000/- On registration of FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala vide order dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before Inspector General of Police, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, he preferred revision before Director General of Police, Punjab, who vide order dated 03/04.08.2020 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the revision petition.
3. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) acquitted the petitioner in the above-said FIR. After his acquittal, he approached Director General of Police, Punjab for reinstatement, who vide order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the same. Thereafter, petitioner filed review/mercy petition (Annexure P-6) before the Principal Secretary, Home & Justice-III, Punjab, Chandigarh which is still pending adjudication.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short '1934 Rules'), the petitioner could not be departmentally punished because he has been acquitted in the criminal trial. The foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial was same. The evidence led by the department in criminal as well as departmental 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 05:54:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041765 2024:PHHC:041765 CWP-7049-2024 -3- proceedings were same, thus, he could not be punished in view of his acquittal in the criminal trial.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was departmentally punished prior to judgment of acquittal, thus, he cannot claim benefit of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. He concedes that petitioner was departmentally punished on account of registration of FIR and evidence in both the proceedings were common.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The entire dispute revolves around interpretation of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules, thus, it would be inevitable to look at aforesaid Rule which is reproduced as below:
"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 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 05:54:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041765 2024:PHHC:041765 CWP-7049-2024 -4- 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."
8. The acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer may be subjected departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action.
9. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner was acquitted after adjudication of departmental proceedings cannot be countenanced because there would be discrimination if contention of the respondent is accepted. On the same set of allegations, two employees in different districts may be subjected to departmental and criminal proceedings or there may be a case where on the identical set of allegations two employees in the same district are subjected to department and criminal proceedings. In case, both the employees are acquitted from the criminal trial and in case of one employee departmental proceedings are still pending he would be entitled to benefit of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules whereas an employee against whom departmental 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 05:54:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041765 2024:PHHC:041765 CWP-7049-2024 -5- proceedings have already concluded would not be entitled to benefit of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. It would be violative of fundamental right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. The State cannot make hostile discrimination.
10. From the perusal of impugned orders, it is evident that authorities have not adverted with Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules while passing the impugned orders. Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules is directly applicable to every departmental proceedings as soon as criminal proceedings are dropped. The competent authority is duty bound to ascertain applicability of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules in the departmental proceedings. As the Appellate Authority has not adverted with Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules while passing impugned orders, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. To cut short the litigation, instead of disciplinary authority, the appellate authority is directed to pass a fresh order within three months from today.
11. This Court would hasten to add that if the appellate authority decides to reinstate the petitioner, he shall not be entitled to back wages as conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.03.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 05:54:02 :::