334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Kanwaljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. Manveen Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.12.2001 whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of five years’ service for the purpose of increments. He further seeks setting aside of order dated 09.12.2004 vide which his name was removed from promotion list C-II (Exemptee).

2. The petitioner was appointed in Punjab Police force as Constable. His name was brought in promotion list C-II (Exemptee) vide order dated 30.03.1991. He was implicated in FIR No. 118 dated 21.07.1996 under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Tarn Taran. He came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 09.09.1997. He was subjected to departmental enquiry and was served a show cause notice dated 10.12.1999 by SSP Tarn Taran. He Vide order dated 17.12.2001 was awarded punishment of forfeiture of 5 years’ service for the purpose of increments. He unsuccessfully filed appeal which was followed by revision.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was honourably acquitted by trial Court, thus, the respondent in view of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’) could not impose penalty of forfeiture of five increments. The respondent-

department has no right to sit over judgment of trial Court.

4. Per contra, Learned State Counsel submits that FIR was registered against the petitioner and his acquittal in criminal case does not entail setting aside of punishment of forfeiture of increment. Standard of proof in departmental proceedings is different from criminal proceedings, thus, impugned orders are justified. A person who was involved in criminal activities cannot be dealt with in a lenient manner. Discipline is of paramount consideration in police force.

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 commission of unnatural act. The investigating agency after completing investigation filed police report. He faced trial and came to be acquitted by Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.09.1997. 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. 8 and 9 of the judgment which are reproduced as below:

“8. In this case, none of the prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution version. PW 1 Amandeep Singh, who is complainant of this case has deposed that on 21.7.96 at about 2.00 p.m. when he went to the room of Kanwaljit Singh to give him newspaper four or five persons were present there and they forcibly made him to sit thereto and he cried upon which his father came there and all the said persons ran away from the spot. He stated that the police had not recorded his statement. PW2 Shangara Singh PW 3 Rajinder Pal Kaur and PW 3 Surjit Kaur eye witnesses also did not support the prosecution case. They stated that they did not see any occurrence nor their statements were recorded by the police. All the four witnesses examined by the prosecution were got declared hostile by the learned APP for the State and they were put questions in the nature of cross examination, but even then nothing favourable to the prosecution could be extracted from their mouth. Since the main prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case, so the evidence of prosecution was closed by order as no useful