JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by Departmental Authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of four increments with permanent effect.

2. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 20.06.1974. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) w.e.f. 03.12.1996. He was implicated in FIR No.120 dated 15.07.2003 registered under Sections 452, 448, 511, 427, 147 and 148 of IPC at Police Station Rajaund. He was suspended w.e.f. 21.10.2003. He was subjected to departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty. He was awarded punishment of forfeiture of four increments with permanent effect. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed. The allegation in the FIR was that he in uniform visited a village without authorization and intervened in a family property dispute between Smt. Pushpa Devi and Sh. Prem Nath. He was carrying his service revolver. The Investigating Officer filed police report and petitioner faced trial. He came to be acquitted by trial Court as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of four increments on the same set of allegations which formed basis of criminal proceedings. The petitioner stands acquitted by trial Court, thus, as per Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’) was entitled to waiver from punishment. The Authorities had not considered order of trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and his acquittal in criminal case does not entail waiver from punishment. He was acquitted extending benefit of doubt.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 01.12.2009 passed by learned ACJM, Kaithal. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that broader facts are not disputed in this case and the law cited at bar is also not disputed by the opposite counsel. Even If defence of the accused is not considered at all wo have to see whether the prosecution has been able to prove Its case against the accused or not. I would like to point out here itself that Ex.PE, Ex.PE/1 confessional statements are not sufficient to prove the alleged occurrence that are with respect to recovering some vehicles allegedly used in commission of crime. But, whether the vehicles were same or not the doubt remains because the prosecution witnesses no where have stated what was the registration number of vehicles on which accused came on the spot therefore, if some Maruti Car and Jeep allegedly to be of some friend of one of the accused has been recovered that itself do not prove the charges against the accused which is with respect to forming unlawful assembly, committing criminal trespass into the house of the complainant, damaging house hold articles and giving theft of life to the complainant because recovering such vehicle has no direct nexus with the commission of alleged crime for which testimony of the prosecution witnesses as has come on the file is required to be meticulously examined. Why the mud from registration plates of the vehicles was not scratched by complainant partly has not been explained by them especially when these vehicles remained parked in the street for about 2-1/2 hours. The evidence on the file is contradictory to the prosecution case set up, at cross-roads with each other and is not probable and natural so as to term the case proved.”

7. The entire dispute revolves around interpretation of Rule 16.3 and 16.25 of 1934 Rules, thus, it would be inevitable to look at aforesaid Rules which are reproduced as below:

“16.3. Action following on a judicial acquittal:

(1) When a Police Officer has been tried and acqui