The central legal point established in the judgment is that acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action, and a police officer may be subjected to departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per the exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby the appellate authority has dismissed his appeal.

2. The petitioner is working with Punjab Police as Head Constable. An FIR No.214 dated 21.11.2016 came to be registered against the petitioner alleging that he has committed theft of pistol of ASI Balvir Singh. The police completed investigation and filed its report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. The trial Court after examining the evidence led by prosecution came to a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case. The relevant extracts of the judgment dated 08.07.2022 passed by JMIC, Khanna read as :

“17. This court has further observed that Investigating officer SI Gurmail Singh not examined by the prosecution. Investigating officer was the material witness in the present case. This court has further observed that no khakha of recovery weapon is placed on record. Investigating officer was best witness who can disclose the same in actual.

18. This court has further observed that no independent witness is joined by the Investigating officer at the time of alleged recovery. Although the testimony of official witness cannot be denied only on the ground that they are official but in the present case it was essential to join or independent witness at the time of recovery as both the accused and complainant are police officials and witnesses are also police official. There may be chances of favourtisim at the instance of witnesses of recovery who are police officials. As per the prosecution story on the disclosure of accused weapon is recovered from Abaad Colony Near Main Gate of Farm House Village Rorian of weapon. The place of recovery of weapon in the present case is accessible to everyone. So, no reliance can be placed on to convict the accused.

19. This court has further observed that as per the prosecution story complainant was incharge of police post Kot in the year 2015 and accused got transferred from Police Post Kot by the SSP on the asking of Complainant. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was transferred accordingly. No transfer order has been placed on record by the prosecution. Meaning thereby the motive of accused not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive of accused in the present case. When there is no motive, then the link in the chain is missing. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused persons.

20. The evidence produced on record by the prosecution is neither sufficient nor material to prove the guilt of the accused. So, giving the benefit of doubt, accused namely Gursewak Singh, is hereby acquitted of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds furnished earlier, stands discharged. Case property be disposed of, as per rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. File be consigned to the record room Khanna after due compliance.”

3. On the one hand, the petitioner was subjected to criminal trial and on the other hand, respondent initiated departmental proceedings. The petitioner in the departmental proceedings was subjected to punishment of stoppage of three annual increments. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of punishment which came up for consideration before the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana. The appellate authority vide order dated 18.03.2023 has dismissed appeal of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority was duty bound to consider applicability of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 while adjudicating the appeal, however, appellate authority without noticing scope and ambit of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 has dismissed appeal of the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel