Baljit Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders i.e. inquiry report (Annexure P-1), dismissal order (Annexure P-5) and appeal (Annexure P-7). The brief allegations are that while the petitioner was posted in Police Station Sadar, Kurukshetra one Tyre include Rim of the Van was stolen by him on 05/06.11.1993 at night. While the inquiry proceedings and the criminal case against the petitioner proceeded, at one stage, after the inquiry was over further action was deferred to await the decision of the criminal Court. The Court acquitted the petitioner. After his acquittal the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra issued show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed and enclosed an inquiry report therewith. Ultimately the petitioner was dismissed and his statutory appeals were also rejected.

On 29.08.2013 the following observation was made:--

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the first instance the inquiry proceedings are vitiated and it is the case of no evidence. I find that is not so and there is positive evidence against the petitioner to the effect that the tyre and rim were recovered from his car.

The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the infraction of Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The said rule is to the following effect:--

16.3 Action following on a judicial acquittal

(1) When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court he shall 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 the Deputy Inspector- General of Police; and a police officer against whom such action is admissible shall not be deemed to have been honourably acquitted for the purpose of Rule 7.3 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I.

The precise stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 the police officer who has been acquitted by the Court of law cannot be proceeded against save in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to have recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the said conditions and only thereafter the matter could have proceeded further. As per him, none of the conditions have been fulfilled. In the present case neither any such satisfaction was recorded by the Superintendent of Police nor such satisfaction was communicated to the petitioner in the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further asserted that not only should such satisfaction be recorded on the file but it must be a part of the show cause notice so that the petitioner can respond to it.

Learned Assistant Advocate General is not in a position to deny the factual assertion that no such satisfaction was recorded by the Superintendent of Police in the file.

In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight. Once the rule envisages that on acquittal no further action can be taken against the police officer saved for certain exceptions, those exceptions must be recorded and must be put to the delinquent in the show cause notice so that he should respond thereto. For instance, a delinquent may be able to show that he has not won over any witness or that the criminal charge against him has not failed on technical grounds. Thus, a failure to mention any of the exceptions would in my considered opinion be illegal. In the circumstances, the order of dismissal has to be set aside.

Learned Assistant Advocate General while relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Dr Harbhajan Singh Greasy, has argued that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above the proper course is to direct the authority to proceed with the enquiry afresh in accordance with law. I find this to be a fair argument. Resultantly, the impugned orders (Annexures P-5 and P-7) are set aside. Consequently, even though the dismissal order has been set aside the matter is remanded back to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Let the necessary action be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that with the setting aside of the dismissal order the petitioner has not been held entitled to any consequential benefits but the same would depend on the fresh order to be passed by the Competent Authority.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.