IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 CWP-16363-2019 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 Onkar Singh ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner (appearing through video conferencing).

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking modification of orders dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-8) and 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-9) to the extent his three years service has been forfeited.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 28.05.1990. His nephew (sister's son) solemnized marriage with Narinder Kaur on 09.09.2015. The matrimonial discord took place in the relations of his nephew and his wife. Nephew's wife lodged FIR against her husband as well as distant relatives including petitioner. He came to be convicted by CJM, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 09.09.2015. On account of conviction, the respondent vide order dated 19.08.2016 dismissed him from service in terms of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short 'PPR'). He preferred appeal before Appellate Court against judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2015. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2018 acquitted him. The acquittal was honourable. It is apt to notice that during the pendency of appeal, judgment of conviction was stayed by this Court in CRR-4978-2015 on 29.11.2016. He preferred appeal before Appellate Authority against order of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority by impugned order, ordered to reinstate him in service, however, forfeited his three years' service. He unsuccessfully preferred revision before Director General of Police.

3. Mr. K.B. Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was honourably acquitted and he was implicated in an offence with which he was not even remotely connected. As per Rule 16.2(2) read with Rule

16.3 of PPR, the punishment awarded by respondent needs to be set aside.

4. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, on being confronted with judgment of acquittal, expressed his inability to controvert the fact that there was honourable acquittal. The petitioner was implicated by wife of his nephew alleging commission of offence under Section 498A IPC.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. Proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, mandates that in case conviction of a police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by government in this behalf. Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 provides that if a police officer is acquitted by criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case. Rules 16.2 and 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules are reproduced as below:

“16.2. Dismissal-(1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed: Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal:

Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf.

(3) When a police officer is