High Court Reinstates Punjab Cop After Acquittal In Robbery Case, Cautions Authority Against 'One Liner Order' Dispensing Departmental Enquiry
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed to reinstate a policeman expelled from service for being accused in robbery case even after being acquitted in the matter.Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the, “police authorities dismiss an officer as soon as FIR is registered whereas mandate of Rule 16.2 and 16.3 is to dismiss from service after conviction. The officer may be suspended...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed to reinstate a policeman expelled from service for being accused in robbery case even after being acquitted in the matter.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the, “police authorities dismiss an officer as soon as FIR is registered whereas mandate of Rule 16.2 and 16.3 is to dismiss from service after conviction. The officer may be suspended or assigned non sensitive posting, however, department should not take harsh action of dismissal from service in every case where an FIR has been registered. In an exceptional case, action of dismissal at the first instance may be taken but it should not be practice.”
In the present case, the judge highlighted that, petitioner was dismissed from service as soon as FIR was registered and no departmental inquiry was conducted.
“He was acquitted in the criminal proceedings. The departmental authorities were bound to reconsider his case whereas respondent has mechanically dismissed his claim. He is out of service since 2012. He is deprived from salary and other benefits arising out of job. He by 2012 had already completed service of 22 years,” the Court said further.
Referring to Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Rule 16.2) the Court added, “the authority is bound to consider length of service and entitlement of pension while passing order of punishment.”
Moreover, the Court found that the officer was expelled without inquiry.
Justice Bansal said that the respondent can dispense with inquiry if actually it is not practicable to hold the inquiry.
“Mere writing one line in the impugned order that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not compliance of mandate of either Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of the 1934 Rules,” the Court added.
These observations were made while hearing the dismissal order of one Amar Singh, who was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Punjab Police in 2012. He along with other co-accused was booked in an FIR under Sections 365, 392, 120-B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.
Singh was arrested in the said FIR. The Disciplinary Authority invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution dismissed him from service without conducting inquiry. He unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority. After facing trial Singh was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate. After his acquittal, he approached Authorities to reinstate him. However the same was rejected.
After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that, “Acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer may be subjected to 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.”
Perusing the rule, the judge said, it is quite evident that if a Police Officer as a normal Rule, is acquitted by criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in criminal case.
“There are exceptions carved out in the said Rule. The exceptions include exoneration on technical grounds or where Superintendent of Police finds that prosecution witnesses have been won over,” the Court added.
In the present case, the Court noted that the the petitioner was acquitted by trial Court. From the perusal of findings recorded by trial Court, it is evident that prosecution failed to prove recovery of alleged articles from the petitioner and further could not connect alleged recovery with the claim of complainant.
“The necessary witnesses were not examined. All these facts compelled the trial Court to acquit the petitioner. It is difficult to hold that the petitioner has been acquitted on technical grounds or witnesses have turned hostile. The departmental punishment was awarded on the same set of allegations and evidence. There is nothing on record to hold that case of respondents falls in any exception carved out in Rule 16.3 of the 1934 Rules. Thus, there is no ground to sustain departmental punishment,” the judge opined.
The Court also pointed out that conditions given under Article 311 (2) of Constitution, to comply for dispensing with the inquiry was not fulfilled.
As per Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, inquiry may be dispensed with:
(i) where person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge;or
(ii) where the competent authority finds that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(iii) where President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
Justice Bansal observed that in the present case, the conditions given was not complied and authorities only passed one liner order stating that holding inquiry will not be practicable.
In the light of the above, the Court quashed the dismissal order.
Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate with petitioner-in person.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Title: Amar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 39
