ORDER

Leave granted.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1581/1988 whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated 5.1.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1985, for declaration that the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 1.7.1981 endorsing and reviving that order as also that of the disciplinary authority thereby punishing the respondent herein by imposing a punishment of forfeiture of service on the respondent for a period of two years and the order of the D.I.G., the appellate authority as also the Inspector General of Police, Revisional authority were illegal.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

3. Respondent was a police constable. For commission of the alleged offence under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 1974, he was prosecuted in the year 1979. He was convicted. However, a criminal appeal was preferred by him. By a judgment and order dated 8.1.1979, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala allowed the said appeal, holding:

" The learned P.P. has frankly conceded that he is unable to support the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Both P.W.1 Bant Singh and P.W.2 Prem Singh did not support the prosecution version at trial and consequently they were declared hostile. The learned Magistrate recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of evidence given by Shri Jaswant Singh and Investigating Officer Shri Mohinder Singh. But their alleged guilt. The charge under Section 170 IPC that the appellant Sucha Singh pretended to hold office of DTO Ropar and did traffic checking partly could not be established in the absence of evidence of PW Prem Singh and PW Bant Singh. There witnesses stated that they did not know anything in this respect. That being so, the conviction of the appellant under Section 170 IPC could not be recorded."

4. A disciplinary proceeding, however, was initiated against respondent on the same allegations wherein a punishment of forfeiture of salary was imposed upon him.

5. He filed Suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Patiala in the year 1982 contending that as the respondent was acquitted after giving benefit of doubt and, thus, his acquittal was not on merit, the order of punishment in the disciplinary proceeding should also be set aside.

6. The said suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 29.10.1985. Respondent herein preferred an appeal, thereagainst, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Patiala by a judgment and decree dated 5.1.1988. As noticed hereinbefore, the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. -2-

7. The only contention which has been raised before us is that as the perusal of the judgment dated 8.1.79 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1979 would show that the principal prosecution witnesses were won over, the criminal charges could not be proved and, thus, the matter comes within the purview of Rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, 1934 which reads as under:

" 16.3. Action following on judicial acquittal: (1) When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by 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 charges has failed on technical ground; 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