Sh. Ashok Puri vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Brief facts of the case that would require notice are that the petitioner joined Punjab Police as Probationer A.S.I. on 25.3.1980. He, thereafter, earned promotions to the rank of Sub Inspector in the year 1984, Inspector in the year 1989 and D.S.P. in the year 1993. F.I.R. No. 34 dated 19.2.2000 under sections 376A, 343, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and Arms Act was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Jagraon. Based upon the registration of the aforenoticed F.I.R, the respondent-authorities invoked the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India holding an inquiry to be not reasonably practicable and vide order dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the petitioner from service. Even the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of dismissal vide order dated 6.6.2003 at Annexure P-4.

The petitioner, at that stage, approached this Court in terms of filing C.W.P. No. 13410 of 2006. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.2006 at Annexure P-6 taking notice of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the trial initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to F.I.R. No. 34 dated 19.2.2000 was in the final stages. Accordingly, liberty was sought from the court for the petitioner to seek reinstatement in service in the eventuality of his earning acquittal. The petition was disposed of in terms of such liberty having been granted.''

Vide order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, a copy of which stands appended at Annexure P-7 the petitioner stands acquitted. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation before the respondent-authorities seeking reinstatement in service. Such request stands declined in the light of a cryptic, non-speaking memo dated 2.5.2013 at Annexure P-9.

It is against such brief factual backdrop and towards impugning memo dated 2.5.2013 that the instant writ petition has been filed.

Upon notice of motion having been issued, a reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been duly filed.

Even though, the impugned order at Annexure P-9 is completely bereft of any reasoning, yet, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner seeking reinstatement, has been justified on two counts. Firstly, it is stated that the allegation against the petitioner was with regard to rape of a minor girl and even though, the petitioner stands acquitted but the competent court has given benefit of doubt in the judgment of acquittal. That apart, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, .

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that there has been a complete non-application of mind at the hands of the respondent-authorities in having passed the impugned order dated 2.5.2013 (Annexure P-9). The judgment of acquittal dated 29.2.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is on record. Undoubtedly, in the concluding portion of the judgment the Additional Sessions Judge has observed that benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused i.e. the present petitioner, yet, it authority.

That apart, the reliance placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in S. Samuthiram''s case (supra), is totally misplaced. In the facts of that case not only criminal proceedings but even a departmental inquiry had been initiated against the official concerned and which had finally culminated in the passing of an order of dismissal. The question that had been considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, was as to whether mere acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court would have any impact on the disciplinary proceedings that stood initiated and finalized by the department. In the facts of the present case the conceded position of fact is that no departmental proceedings had been conducted against the petitioner. The judgment in S. Samuthiram''s case (supra), as such, would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.2013 (Annexure P-9) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-authorities/competent authority for reconsideration and passing of a fresh order as regards the claim of the petitioner seeking reinstatement. Suffice it to observe that such order that has now been directed to be passed, would be a well reasoned and speaking order. Let such exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.