Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
2024:PHHC:035047
CWP-5727-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129 CWP-5727-2024
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
Sarabjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, 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 23.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby
Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment of
dismissal;
ii. order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-3) whereby Appellate
Authority has dismissed appeal of the petitioner; and
iii. order dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby revision
petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was working with respondent-department as
Constable. Departmental proceedings came to be initiated against the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
2024:PHHC:035047
petitioner for accepting bribe. An FIR No.5 dated 12.09.2019 under Sections 7
and 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Amendment
Act, 2018) was registered against the petitioner. The Commissioner of Police
dismissed him from service by order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure P-2). He
unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision before the departmental
authorities. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-5)
has acquitted the petitioner in the above-said FIR.
3. 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
proceedings were same, thus, he could not be punished in view of his acquittal
in the criminal trial.
4. 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. The departmental proceedings were
adjudicated on different parameters. The petitioner has been acquitted on the
ground of benefit of doubt. He concedes that petitioner was departmentally
punished on account of registration of FIR and evidence in both the
proceedings were common.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and
perused the record with their able assistance.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
2024:PHHC:035047
6. 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
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."
7. The acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically
entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer may be subjected
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
2024:PHHC:035047
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.
8. 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
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.
9. From the perusal of impugned orders and facts on record, it is
evident that appellate authority had no opportunity to advert with Rule 16.3 of
1934 Rules while passing said order. 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
2024:PHHC:035047
impugned orders, the impugned orders dated 10.02.2021(Annexure P-3) and
18.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) 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.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035047
5 of 5
