Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Through Its Secretary And ... vs Gurmit Singh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204 RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M)
Date of decision:10.04.2024
Punjab State Through Its Secretary and others
...Appellants
Versus
Gurmit Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
for the appellants.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Sartej S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
CM-10645-C-2019
1. Prayer in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, is for condonation of delay of 70 days in the filing of the appeal.
2. State counsel urges that the delay in the filing of the appeal has
occurred due to the time consumed in according and issuance of sanction for
filing of appeal.
3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent on
21.08.2019, however, no reply has been filed.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -2-
4. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied with
the reasons given in the application. Appellants have made out a sufficient
cause for condonation of delay.
5. Accordingly, delay of 70 days in the filing of the appeal is
condoned.
6. Application is disposed of.
Main Case
7. Defendant-appellants are in second appeal challenging the
judgment and decree dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Amritsar.
8. Pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he joined the
Punjab Police on 15.05.1992 on the post of Constable. FIR No.45 dated
12.02.2011 was lodged against him for offences under Sections 364, 498-A,
IPC at P.S. A-Division, Amritsar, by his father-in-law. Plaintiff proceeded
on leave from 17.02.2011 to 19.02.2011 and apprehending arrest in the FIR,
he absented himself from duty thereafter. By order dated 14.08.2011, he was
placed under suspension. He surrendered before the Court and was released
on bail. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him for remaining absent
from duty and on the basis of the report, vide impugned order dated
26.05.2012, he was dismissed from service with retrospective effect from
19.02.2011. After facing trial in the FIR case, plaintiff was acquitted by
judgment dated 27.10.2014. Departmental appeal filed by him was accepted,
punishment was reduced to forfeiture of three years approved service on
permanent basis towards annual increments and he was reinstated in service.
The period from date of dismissal to reinstatement was treated as dies non.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -3-
Challenging both the orders, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration
and consequential relief.
9. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendant-appellants by
taking various preliminary submissions. It was submitted that the allegation
levelled against the plaintiff-respondent was that he used to harass his wife
and due to the registration of the criminal case, he was proceeded against
departmentally as he was arrested in the FIR. Plaintiff filed a replication
reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, issues were framed. After they led evidence, Trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017, dismissed the suit. First appeal
preferred by the plaintiff was accepted and the orders passed by the
defendants were set aside and they were directed to pass a fresh order within
a period of four months after getting the certified copy of the judgment. It is
in this backdrop that the defendant-appellants are before this Court in the
present appeal.
10. State counsel has argued that the plaintiff-respondent was
acquitted in the criminal case as he was given a benefit of doubt and it
cannot be said that he had earned a clean acquittal. On the other hand,
counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has taken a stand that acquittal is
acquittal whether it is on account of benefit of doubt or on the failure of the
prosecution to prove the charge.
11. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the record of the Trial Court.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -4-
12. In Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others
Versus Pradeep Kumar and another (2018) 1 SCC 797, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not
conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post
concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it
cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or
he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an
honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the
benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal, was
considered by this Court in Inspector General of Police
and another Versus S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598,
in which this Court held as under:- (SCC p. 609, para
24).
"24. The meaning of expression
"honourable acquittal" came up for consideration
before this Court in RBI versus Bhopal Singh
Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this
Court has considered the impact of Regulation
46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a
criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In
that context, this Court held that mere acquittal
does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in
service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be
honourable. The expressions "honourable
acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully
exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by
judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define
precisely what is meant by the expression
"honourably acquitted". When the accused is
acquitted after full consideration of prosecution
evidence and that the prosecution had miserably
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -5-
failed to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the accused
was honourably acquitted."
13. It is, therefore, imperative to examine the judgment dated
27.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar,
whereby the plaintiff-respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled
against him. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"20. Apart from these two witnesses, the
prosecution has not led evidence of any other witness to
prove on file the guilt against the accused. The other
witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal
witnesses as even the statement of PW4 Investigating
Officer ASI Rachhpal Singh is not sufficient to prove on
file the guilt of the accused as he has just proved the
investigating part. Thus, in view of above discussion,
there is nothing on file on the basis of which it can be
held that accused had ever treated his wife Rajwant Kaur
with cruelty or that he had kidnapped her. Since the
prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt
of the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt,
the points of determination formed in earlier part of the
judgment are decided against the prosecution and in
favour of accused. Accordingly, by giving the benefit of
doubt, accused Gurmeet Singh stands acquitted of the
charge framed against him. The file be consigned to the
record room."
14. It transpires from the above reproduced judgment passed in the
criminal case that the prosecution could not establish that the plaintiff-
respondent was maltreating his wife or had abducted her. As the prosecution
failed to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt, plaintiff-respondent
was acquitted by the Trial Court of the charges, although, it was mentioned
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052917
2024:PHHC:052917
RSA-3951 of 2019 (O & M) -6-
that he has been given the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, it cannot be
overlooked that the FIR had been registered by the father-in-law of the
plaintiff-respondent, which evidently was a result of a marital discord.
Though, it has been held by the Apex Court that the phrase "honourable
acquittal" is not defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but
from an examination of the judgment of the Trial Court, this Court has no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent had
earned a clean acquittal.
15. An examination of the impugned appellate order dated
10.02.2016 shows that the reason as to why the punishment of forfeiture of
three years service has been imposed has not been given nor has the
appellate authority examined the judgment passed by the Trial Court in the
criminal case. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere
with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which
deserves to be upheld.
16. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
10.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
