Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J., Jagdish Bhalla, J.
Kedar Nath Yadav
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Special Appeal 316 of 2005
Decided On : 17 May 2005
Special Appeal 316 Of 2005
SUPREME COURT - POLICE REGULATIONS - 492, 493 - The court discussed the applicability of Police Regulations 492 and 493 in the context of departmental proceedings against a police officer who had been acquitted in criminal courts. The court found that the authorities had erred in not following the regulations and had proceeded to decide differently on the charge of embezzlement, despite the acquittal in the criminal courts. The court set aside the order under appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the disciplinary proceedings, exonerating the writ petitioner-appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-writ petitioner was deprived of balance pay during a period of suspension and was prosecuted in criminal courts for embezzlement of four magazines. Despite being acquitted in the criminal courts, the departmental proceedings continued, resulting in adverse orders against the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities erred in not following Police Regulations 492 and 493, and had proceeded to decide differently on the charge of embezzlement, despite the acquittal in the criminal courts. The court set aside the order under appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the disciplinary proceedings, exonerating the writ petitioner-appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Police Regulations 492 and 493 in the context of departmental proceedings against a police officer who had been acquitted in criminal courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities were bound to follow regulations 492 and 493, and their failure to do so constituted an error of law. The court emphasized that an acquittal is an acquittal, and one cannot go behind it but must accept it on its face value.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order under appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the disciplinary proceedings, exonerating the writ petitioner-appellant. All benefits and consequential benefits were to be accorded to the appellant, including payment of all arrears, within a period of a fortnight from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THE appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of.
( 2 ) WE have heard the arguments on law from both sides for two days and since the matter is essentially a legal one, the appeal is ripe for final disposal by us.
( 3 ) THE appeal is from the order passed by an Honble Single Judge on the 11th of April, 2005, whereby his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner.
( 4 ) THE facts of this case, so far as the legal point is concerned, lie within a very brief compass. By reason of the order passed in the department, which was impugned in the writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner was deprived of the balance pay during the period of one year, when he was under suspension (from 14. 12. 1990 to 4. 1. 1991 ).
( 5 ) THE writ petitioner has now retired. However, the adverse order will still subsist and operate against him unless he is successful in the appeal.
( 6 ) THE charge against the writ petitioner was with regard to four magazines only, which were found short out of a total number of nearly 500, which were in his custody. The charge in the department was of embezzlement of those four items.
( 7 ) THE writ petitioner was prosecuted in the Criminal Courts also on the very same charge; the writ petitioner was first acquitted and discharged on 7. 2. 1992 by the trial Court. However, the state came up on a revision and retrial was ordered. After the retrial, the writ petitioner was again acquitted on the 1st of October, 2003. This time, the judgment clarified that the acquittal was on the basis of the giving of the benefit of doubt to the writ petitioner.
( 8 ) IN the meantime however, during the two acquittals, which the writ petitioner was successful in obtaining, the departmental proceedings continued; the Superintendent of Police on the 6th of may, 1995 passed an adverse order against the writ petitioner. The departmental appeal was disposed of on the 4th of January, 1997 and on the 31st of January, 1998 the order depriving the writ petitioner of his pay was passed.
( 9 ) THE appellant argued before us that according to two Police Regulations, which according to the appellant were at all material times (and still are) in force, the department had no jurisdiction to enter a substantial finding different from that entered by the Criminal Courts. One of the regulations requires that if the matter is subjudice, the departmental inquiry should not progress until the matter is decided before the appropriate authority. This is Regulation 492 of the Police regulations. The other Regulation is the very next one, i. e. Regulation 493, which requires that if the charge in the department is the same as the charge before the judicial authority, then and in that event, the department should decide the matter in exactly the same manner as the judicial authority had done.
( 10 ) SUB-REGULATION (c) of Regulation 493 was particularly relied upon, as that is the sub-regulation in point.
( 11 ) IN that sub-regulation, there is permission for the department to proceed on a different type of charge than might have been decided upon by the judicial authority, i. e. , if the criminal charge is for theft and the Constable has been acquitted, the department would be entitled nonetheless to proceed for the loss of the same item on charges, say, of negligence.
( 12 ) BUT this is not the case here; embezzlement was the charge before the Criminal Court and embezzlement was the charge before the department also.
( 13 ) MOREOVER, the writ petitioner has been bringing to the notice of the department and the writ court these two Regulations from the very beginning constantly, again and again. The matter, thus, has to be decided fairly and squarely.
( 14 ) THE two Regulations mentioned above are set out below :
492. Whenever a police officer has been Judicially tried, the Superintendent must await the decision of the judicial appeal, if any, before deciding whether further departmental action is
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
