In a writ petition, the court held that departmental authorities must review a dismissal order under Punjab Police Rules if the officer was later acquitted in criminal proceedings. The court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-17103-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
106 CWP-17103-2022
Date of Decision : 05.08.2024
PARKASH SINGH @ RACHPAL SINGH …. PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
(i) order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-7) whereby Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment of dismissal; (ii) order dated 18.04.2019 (Annexure P-10) whereby Appellate Authority has dismissed appeal of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was working with respondent-department as Constable. An FIR No.12 dated 23.02.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala was registered against the petitioner. Departmental proceedings came to be initiated against him. He came to be convicted
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-17103-2022 2
vide judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed by trial Court. Senior Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service vide order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-7). He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the departmental authority. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 has acquitted him in the above-said FIR. 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.
“16.2. Dismissal .- (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3
CWP-17103-2022
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.
(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
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-17103-2022
4
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.”
automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-17103-2022 5
may be subjected departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action.
05.08.2024 anju
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental authorities are bound to review punishment of dismissal after criminal acquittal under Punjab Police Rules.
Whether an appellate authority must review the case in light of a subsequent acquittal when the original dismissal order was passed before the acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ChandigarhReferred
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ChandigarhReferred
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ChandigarhReferred
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ChandigarhReferred
Anju Goel 2024.08.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ChandigarhReferred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
PARKASH SINGH @ RACHPAL SINGH
STATE OF PUNJAB
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
