Rachhpal Singh, Head Constable vs State of Punjab and Another

H.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner joined as a constable in the Punjab Police on 1.10.1971. After having passed the lower school course in

April, 1978, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable in August in the same year. While promoted as MHC in Police Station, Division No.

4, Jalandhar, two criminal cases i.e. F.I.R. No. 398 dated 29.11.1982 and F.I..R. No. 79 dated 9.5.1986 both u/s 409 of the I.P.C. were

registered against him and he was, thereafter, prosecuted for the said offence. The petitioner was, however, acquitted in the first case on

10.8.1988 and in the second case on 17.12.1988. In the meantime, it appears that the case of the petitioner for being sent to the intermediate

school course for coming on to promotional list ''D'' making him eligible for promotion to the rank of ASI came up for consideration and vide

Annexure P1 dated 24.4.1988, 12 Head Constables were confirmed but the petitioner was kept for the reason that there were two criminal cases

pending against him. This exercise was repeated vide Annexure P-2 to P-7 in the year 1988-89 and various Head Constables juniors to the

petitioner was confirmed as such but the petitioner''s confirmation was denied for the reason set out above. After his acquittal in the two cases, the

petitioner filed a representation praying that he should now be sent to the Intermediate School Course and on having been denied this benefit once

again, he filed C.W.P. No. 3477 of 1989 and this Court in its order dated 16.3.1989 Annexure P-8 directed that the representation filed by the

petitioner should be disposed off within 15 days. In compliance with this direction, the S.S.P., Jalandhar vide order dated 31.3.1989 An-nexure

P-9 to the petition, declined the claim of the petitioner by observing that his service record had been found to be unsatisfactory in comparison with

that of his contemporaries and that as an appeal against acquittal has been filed in the High Court with respect to the F.I.R. No. 398 dated

29.11.1982, the petitioner''s claim to confirmation as Head Constable was not tenable. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the High Court

through judgment dated 1.5.1991. It appears that after his acquittal by the High Court, the department itself initiated an enquiry against the

petitioner on which he got an injunction order from the Civil Court restraining the department from going on with the enquiry proceedings. He also

filed C.W.P. No. 7439 of 1991 praying that as he had now been acquitted by the criminal Court, his case for confirmation as Head Constable

should be considered and this Court vide its order dated 4.12.1991 held that as the departmental proceedings which has been stayed on an

application filed by the petitioner, no meaningful order could be given to him at this stage and a direction was issued that the authorities should

consider his case in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court within six months and if the authorities felt any difficulty in complying with the

order, they could take appropriate proceedings after having the injunction granted by the Civil Court vacated. It was also made clear that if during

the period of six months, the petitioner''s case for confirmation was not sent up for consideration, he would be sent for undergoing the intermediate

school course commencing on 1.4.1992. As the authorities were unable to get any modification in the interim order granted by the Civil Court

which had also been confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by order dated 7.1.1993, the petitioner was sent to the

intermediate school course and has also passed the same (August 1992). It is the admitted case that the suit filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed and the appeal up to the High Court too met with the same fate, with the result that the stay granted by the Civil Court in the initiation of

the departmental enquiry has also been vacated.

Mr. H.S. Mann, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, a

departmental enquiry on the same facts and circumstances could not have been initiated as provided under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules,

1934 (hereinafter called ''the Rules'') as the case of the petitioner did not fall within the exception of (a) to (e) of the Rules. He has also cited Union

of India and another v. Yogender Singh 1996 (1) S.L.R. 133, in support of his case.

As against this, Mr. Gill has pointed out that the Civil Suit impugning the action of the authorities in initiating a departmental enquiry after the

petitioner''s acquittal by the Criminal Court had been dismissed and as such the same relief could not be claimed in the present writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the argument of the State Counsel has merit. As already noticed above,

the petitioner has challenged the initiation of the departmental enquiry after his acquittal by the criminal Court on the ground that Rule 16.3

precluded such action but the Civil Court having decided the matter the other way and an appeal up to the High Court has also been dismissed, the

same relief cannot be granted in this writ petition.

The matter, however, does not rest here. To my mind, Rule 16.3, itself precludes a departmental enquiry after a police official has been

acquitted by a criminal court except in a few situations set out in clauses (a) and (e). It is equally true that the petitioner''s juniors have been

confirmed as Head Constables from 1986 onwards as would be evident from Annexure P-1 to P-7 and the petitioner has continued to languish as

an unconfirmed Head Constable despite having been found innocent by the criminal Court. In para 13 of the writ petition, it has been pointed out

that various Head Constables who were charged for more than one criminal charge and had been awarded major punishments, had been

confirmed as Head Constables whereas petitioner had not been granted this benefit. The averments made in this paragraph had not been denied by

the respondents. I am, therefore, of the opinion that though the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition, his case should be

reconsidered in the light of Rule 16.3, and the judgment cited by Mr. Mann, referred to above. It is also directed that should the petitioner be

confirmed with retrospective effect, he would also be entitled to all the benefit from the date. It is also ordered the enquiry against the petitioner

would be completed positively within a period of six months from the date, that a copy of this order is supplied to the respondents provided the

petitioner does not delay the proceedings. In case, the enquiry is not comapleted within that period and no further extension is sought by the

respondents, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed from 1.7.1986 as would be evident from Annexure P-1 to the petition.