JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J.

This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 18.08.2022, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

3. The appellant was appointed as Constable in Haryana Police on 08.02.1984 and thereafter promoted as Head Constable, and then E/ASI. Pursuant to registration of FIR No.23, dated 11.07.2011, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer, vide a detailed report (P-4), concluded that he had taken bribe, while he was posted as Traffic Staff at Faridabad, from a scrap-dealer (Rakesh Chand) and was caught red-handed by the Vigilance team. Accordingly, the punishing authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant dismissed him from service on 04.07.2013 (P-7). The appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Commissioner of Police on 22.10.2013 (P-9). And, even the revision petition preferred by him was dismissed by the Director General of Police, vide order dated 25.03.2015 (P-11). However, vide judgment dated 30.08.2016, the appellant was acquitted by the Special Judge, Faridabad in FIR No.23, dated 11.07.2011. Whereupon, he filed a mercy appeal before Director General of Police, Haryana on 14.09.2016 (P- 13), seeking reinstatement in service, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2018 (P-15). It was in this backdrop, the appellant approached this Court vide civil writ petition, which, as indicated above, has since been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has merely reiterated the submissions that were advanced before the learned Single Judge: he submits that on the basis of same set of charges/allegations, the appellant was tried in a criminal case and was also proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. Even, the evidence led in both the proceedings was the same. Thus, it is urged that once the appellant was acquitted by the Special Judge, the authorities were obliged to reinstate him in service. Further, in reference to Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, he asserts that upon acquittal by the Criminal Court, the departmental proceedings as also the order of dismissal from service, paled into insignificance. And, thus, his reinstatement in service was the inevitable consequence. However, the authorities as also the learned Single Judge failed to examine/analyze this aspect in the right perspective.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. In brief, the charges/allegations against the appellant were that he took illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- from Rakesh Chand (complainant) and was caught red-handed by the Vigilance department. On the basis of the evidence and material on record, the Inquiry Officer concluded that recovery of tainted currency notes was caused from the appellant. The shadow witness supported the case of the department, and the hands of the appellant turned pink when they were washed with sodium carbonate solution. Which was a positive affirmation of receipt of bribe by him. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service on 04.07.2013 (P-7). And, as indicated earlier, the appeal as also the revision filed by him against the order of dismissal were rejected by the competent authorities. It would be apposite to point out here that it is not the case of the appellant before this Court that departmental proceedings held against him were either violative of principle of natural justice; or the findings/