Back
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Kulwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
The petitioners through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure P-6) whereby their claim for reinstatement as Special Police Officer has been rejected.
2. The petitioners vide appointment letter dated 27.08.1994 were appointed as Special Police Officers (for short 'SPO'). They were appointed by Deputy Superintendent of Police and their job was track patrolling. On the intervening night of 29/30.10.1997, they were on duty as members of escort party on Howrah Express, Amritsar. A commotion erupted between few passengers and escort party. An FIR No. 64 dated 30.10.1997 under Section 395 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Government Railway Police, Patiala against members of the escort party. The petitioners along with other accused were arrested and thereafter released on bail vide order dated 11.12.1997. The petitioners came to be discharged from service vide orders dated 01.11.1997 (Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively). They faced criminal trial wherein they came to be acquitted at the stage of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. because trial Court f
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not confer automatic rights to reinstatement for daily wage employees, as their employment lacks vested rights.
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not guarantee reinstatement in service due to differing standards of proof in departmental inquiries.
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate the authority's power to impose disciplinary action when misconduct is proven by preponderance of probabilities.
(1) Departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – Whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, in ....
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.
Delay in seeking judicial remedy precludes relief for service termination related to misconduct, despite later acquittal.
The acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude disciplinary action in departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof and burden of proof are different in the two proceedings.
Departmental proceedings must adhere to fair process, especially post-acquittal, ensuring that dismissals are justified and not arbitrary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
