Departmental proceedings must adhere to fair process, especially post-acquittal, ensuring that dismissals are justified and not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

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

(i) Order dated 22.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby he was dismissed from service;

(ii) Order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Director General of Police, State Armed Police, Jalandhar-respondent No. 3 whereby his appeals against the order dated 22.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) were dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police on 22.09.1990. In 1994, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable. In 2012, he was adorned with rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Local Rank). An FIR No. 129 dated 15.10.2022 under Sections 365, 392, 120-B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana was registered against him along with four other persons. He was arrested in the said FIR. The Disciplinary Authority invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India dismissed him from service without conducting inquiry. He unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority. He faced trial and came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana. After his acquittal, he approached Authorities to reinstate him. By impugned order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) which was served upon him on 18.12.2024, the Competent Authority has rejected his claim. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules , 1934 (for short '1934 Rules'). The respondents have wrongly rejected his claim. He has not been acquitted by trial Court on technical ground or on the ground that witnesses have turned hostile.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab who on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and waives service.

6. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

7. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that FIR No. 129 dated 15.10.2012 under Sections 365, 392 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner and his acquittal in criminal case does not entail his reinstatement.

8. Mr. Dhir, on being pointed out findings of trial Court, expressed his inability to controvert the fact that petitioner was honourably acquitted and was not accorded benefit of technicalities. However, he submits that standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is different from criminal proceedings, thus, impugned orders are justified.

9. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsel perused the record.

10. Acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. A police officer may be subjected to departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules. If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action. For the ready reference, Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules is reproduced as below:-

"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)