The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the Punjab government to re-consider the case of policemen who had been dismissed from service after a case under UAPA and PMLA was filed against them and observed that these are special Acts and cannot be invoked by writing a letter by SSP and this shows a casual approach was adopted which resulted into acquittal of the officials.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners and policemen were booked under sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. During the investigation, Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were also added after it was alleged that the petitioners in connivance with others had sold arms and ammunition to Naxalites. The Punjab Police initiated departmental proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings, against the petitioner and others, resulting in their dismissal from service. The petitioners then submitted a mercy petition to higher authorities which was dismissed even though the petitioners were acquitted by the trial court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that a number of police officials were charged with the same set of allegations and they were jointly tried by CJM, Mansa and the petitioners have not been reinstated, however, the co-accused after their acquittal have been reinstated.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents expressed his inability to controvert the fact that the petitioners have already been acquitted of criminal charges and the co-accused have been reinstated with consequential benefits and further submitted that benefit to the co-accused has been extended in terms of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the SSP invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without ascertaining even the complete title of these Acts as well as the scope of invoking these Acts. Further, it stated that these are special Acts and cannot be invoked by writing a letter by SSP and this shows that on the one hand, there were serious allegations against the erring police officials and on the other hand, a casual approach was adopted which resulted into acquittal of the officials.
It was further noted that the charges under Section 16A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and PMLA, 2002 were dropped by Sessions Judge and the trial court had acquitted the policemen in the case.
The court after considering the submissions stated that the petitioners on the same set of allegations were subjected to departmental as well as criminal proceedings and were subjected to these proceedings along with other police officials and all the police officials were subjected to the same punishment in the departmental proceedings and all the police officials have been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and few of police officials after their acquittal have been reinstated.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as well as orders of reinstatement passed in the case of other police officials who were accused along with the petitioner in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Harmeet Lal and anr. vs State of Punjab and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Case No.: CWP-18056-2021 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Balbir K. Saini and Mr. Sandeep Bansal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aman Dhir
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
