Acquittal in criminal proceedings necessitates a review of departmental punishment under Punjab Police Rules, 1934, ensuring procedural compliance by authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansau, J. (Oral) - The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

2. The petitioner was working with respondent-department as Constable. An FIR No. 12 dated 23.02.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala was registered against the petitioner. Departmental proceedings came to be initiated against him. He came to be convicted vide judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed by trial Court. Senior Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service vide order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-7). He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the departmental authority. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 has acquitted him in the above-said FIR.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits as per Rule 16.2 read with 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short "Punjab Police Rules"), the punishment awarded by departmental authorities needs to be reviewed in the light of judgment of acquittal.

4. On being asked, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, expressed his inability to controvert the fact that original as well as appellate order was passed prior to judgment of acquittal and authorities have not reviewed case of the petitioner in the light of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules.

5. Proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, mandates that in case conviction of a police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by government in this behalf.

Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 provides that if a police officer is acquitted by criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case. Rules 16.2 and 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules are reproduced as below:

6. 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 Punjab Police Rules, 1934. If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action.

7. From the reading of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, it is quite evident that in case of setting aside of conviction, the officer empowered to appoint is duty bound to review case of the police officer. The original as well as appellate order was passed prior to judgment of acquittal, thus, neither original nor appellate authority had advantage to look at findings of trial court.

8. In the wake of above quoted rules, the appointing authorities are duty bound to review case of the petitioner. To cut short the litigation, instead of original authority, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to review case of the petitioner in the light of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2 read with Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules. The needful shall be done within six months from today.

9. Disposed of in above tenns.