Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Iqbal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent s
CWP No. 7776 of 2024
Decided On : 05-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :
Mr. Ranjivan Singh Advocate , Mr. Risham Raag Singh Advocate , Mr. V.K. Sandhir Advocate , Mr. Vipin Mahajan Advocate , Mr. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia Advocate , Mr. G.S. Bal Senior, Advocate , Ms. Lovepreet Kaur Senior, Advocate , Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka Advocate , Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal Advocate , Mr. Aman Dhir DAG, Punjab

Dismissal of police officers without inquiry is unconstitutional; reinstatement after acquittal entitles them to back wages, with varying amounts based on the nature of acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Punjab Police Act, 1861 - Section 7 - Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Dismissal and reinstatement of police officers - Petitioners dismissed without inquiry due to FIR registration, later acquitted - Court held dismissal invalid without inquiry, granting 50% back wages for certain petitioners and 100% for others based on acquittal status. (Paras 20, 33, 34, 36, 37)

(B) Inquiry Requirement - Article 311(2) - Mandatory inquiry before dismissal unless specific conditions met - Court emphasized that dismissal without inquiry is unconstitutional. (Paras 20, 21)

(C) Back Wages - Determination of pay during dismissal period - Court ruled that full pay is due for honorable acquittals, while others receive determined amounts. (Paras 25, 30)

(D) Procedural Compliance - Importance of following procedural rules in disciplinary actions against police officers - Court criticized the mechanical dismissal process. (Paras 40)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J.:- By this common order, CWP-7776-2024, CWP-7785-2024, CWP-11440-2024, CWP-11395-2024, CWP-11608-2024, CWP-743-1997 and CWP-11816-2024 are disposed of as issues involved in all the petitions are common. The petitioners are police officers and working with Punjab. Police. They at one point of time were dismissed from service and later on reinstated, however, were neither paid pay & allowance for the period from dismissal to reinstatement nor aforesaid period was treated as ‘period spent on duty’. They are seeking back wages and counting of aforesaid period as ‘spent on duty’.

Civil Writ Petition No.7776 of 2024, 7785 of 2024 & 11816 of 2024:

2. Facts and prayers sought in CWP No.7776 of 2024, CWP No.7785 of 2024 and CWP No.11816 of 2024 are identical, thus., for the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from CWP-7776-2024.

Reply by way of affidavit dated 27.05.2024 of Gurmeet Kaur PPS, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Hqrs.), Ludhiana filed (in CWP No.7776 of 2024) on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

3. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated. 02.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by Director General of Police (Law & Order) to the extent period of dismissal has been treated as ‘leave of kind due’ while setting aside order of dismissal dated 25.10.2014.

4. The brief facts leading to controversy in hand are that the petitioner on 15.10.2010 joined Punjab Police as Constable. He alongwith three other persons came to be implicated in FIR No.161 dated 25.10.2014. under Sections 394 read with 34 of 1PC registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, The Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana on the very same day dismissed him from service. Constable-Prabhjot Singh (Petitioner in CWP No.7785 of 2024) was also implicated in the aforesaid FIR as well as dismissed from service. The respondent exercised power conferred by Section 7 of Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 16.1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’) and second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The relevant extracts of dismissal order dated 25.10.2014 passed by Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana are reproduced as below;

“Now therefore, I, Promod Ban, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.. being the competent authority to dismiss Const ‘Iqbal Singh No. 2754/LDH and Const Prabhjot Singh No: 2771/Ldh in ‘exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 read with rule 16.1 of PPR and under article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, hereby dismiss Const. Iqbal Singh No. 2754/LDH and Const. Prabhjot Singh: No 2771/Ldh from service with immediate effect,”

5. The police completed investigation and presented its report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. Petitioner and another Constable-Prabhjot Singh along with two more accused faced trial. The matter came up for final adjudication before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana who vide judgment dated 18.08.2017 held that there are glaring discrepancies in the case of prosecution and the testimony of witnesses. The alleged eye witness has not supported case of the prosecution and deposed to the effect that there were three accused. He has not identified them. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt., accordingly, acquitted all the accused. The relevant extracts of judgment dated 18.08.2017 are reproduced as below: