IMPORTANT POINT
An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude departmental punishment unless specific exceptions in the applicable rules are satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of :

(i) conclusion report dated 26.11.2004 (Annexure P-1);

(ii) order dated 08.09.2006 (Annexure P-3) whereby Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment of forfeiture of three years permanent service;

(iii) order dated 03.04.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) whereby Appellate Authorities have dismissed his appeals.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable. He was implicated in FIR No.112 dated 12.12.2002, under Sections 364, and 34 of IPC (Sections 302, 201, 506 added later on) at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant. The respondent-department initiated departmental enquiry against him and w.e.f. 02.06.2003, he was placed under suspension. The trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2006 acquitted him from all charges levelled in the FIR. He rejoined service from 04.09.2006. He filed reply to departmental charge-sheet and respondent vide order dated 08.09.2006 ordered to forfeit three years of his permanent service. He preferred an appeal before appellate authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2007. He preferred revision against the departmental punishment which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2008.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’), the petitioner could not be departmentally punished because he has been acquitted in the criminal trial. The foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial was same. No evidence was led in departmental proceedings and departmental action is based upon investigation of FIR, thus, he could not be punished in view of his acquittal in the criminal trial.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was acquitted because witness turned hostile, thus, he cannot claim benefit of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. He concedes that petitioner was departmentally punished on account of registration of FIR.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The entire dispute is revolved around interpretation of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules, thus, it would be inevitable to look at aforesaid Rule which is reproduced as below:

“16.3. Action following on a judicial acquittal. - (1) When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court he shall be 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 charge has failed on technical grounds; 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 the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or

(e) additional evidence admissible under rule 16.25(1) in departmental proceedings is available.

(2) Departmental proceedings admissible under subrule (1) may be instituted against Lower Subordinates by the order of the Superintendent of Police but may be taken against Upper Subordinates only with the sanction of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, and a police officer against whom such action is admissible shall not be deemed to have been honorably acquitted for the purpose of rule 7.3 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I.”

7. The acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer may be subjected departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. If acquittal is not ba