JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Appellate Authority whereby appeal against order of dismissal from service has been rejected.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police force as Constable on 22.12.2011. He was implicated in FIR No.129 dated 03.05.2017 under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sarmala, District Ludhiana. Vide order dated 04.05.2017, he was placed under suspension. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala while exercising powers under Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’) vide order dated 29.01.2019 dismissed him from service. He preferred appeal before Inspector General of Police (‘IGP’) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2019. He faced trial and came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by Trial Court. After acquittal, he preferred appeal before the Director General of Police (‘DGP’), Punjab to reinstate him in the light of judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 23.06.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Trial Court. The said judgment was never challenged, thus, has attained finality. The Trial Court found material irregularities in the investigation and prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of findings of Trial Court, petitioner’s case is squarely covered by Rule 16.3 of PPR. The respondent was duty bound to reinstate him in view of his honourable acquittal. He was not acquitted on technical grounds.

4. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who on advance notice is present in Court on behalf of respondent-State, submits that petitioner was not only caught with 15 grams narcotic drugs but also found positive for morphine/buprenorphine in dope test. This establishes beyond doubt that he was involved in illegal activities of drugs. He was acquitted on technical grounds i.e. non-production of owner of car, statement of one witness etc.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was implicated in a criminal case alleging possession of narcotic drugs. The investigating agency after completing investigation filed police report. He faced trial and came to be acquitted by Trial Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2024. As per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1618, it is duty of the Court to examine findings of Trial Court to ascertain whether delinquent was acquitted honourably or otherwise. The Trial Court has recorded its finding in Paragraph Nos.23 to 25 of the judgment which are reproduced as below:

“23. A specific case was put forth by prosecution that accused was apprehended while he was coming by car bearing registration no. DL09CG–7480. It is neither the case of prosecution that accused was the owner of above said vehicle, nor any document has been proved on record to show the registered owner thereof. No person has been examined by prosecution to show that the above said car was ever handed over to accused by its lawful owner. Further IO PW 2 stated in his cross examination that he did not confirm the ownership of car. This fact emerges as a gap in the link of chain of events put forth by prosecutions. Furthermore, it was imperative for prosecution to prove that case property remained untampered throughout. However, a material discrepancy surfaces during cross examination of prosecution witnesses about the sample carrier, who had taken the representative sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The relevant witness PW5, LC. Manju Kaur deposed by way of her affidavit that on 5 May 2017, she was handed over the representative sample