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

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Satbir ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 04.01.2017, 20.04.2017 and 13.07.2017 whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 20.03.1988. In 2016, he was holding rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI). He was implicated in FIR No.167 dated 07.04.2016 registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh along with Jagmal and Narender. Co-accused were also Police Officials. The respondent on one hand initiated departmental proceedings and on the other hand, filed final report before trial Court. The petitioner was found innocent by Inquiry Officer, however, Disciplinary Authority served disagreement note and ordered to dismiss him from service. It is apt to notice here that petitioner was dismissed from service, however, co-accused Jagmal was not dismissed from service. There was allegation against petitioner and Jagmal that they have supplied Charas to co-accused Narender who was a drug addict. The petitioner preferred an appeal against order of dismissal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority. He further preferred revision which also came to be dismissed by Director General of Police (DGP). Trial Court vide judgment dated 04.11.2016 acquitted him in aforesaid FIR.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner and Jagmal were on the same footing. There were same set of allegations against them still Jagmal was reinstated and petitioner was dismissed from service. Inquiry Officer did not find him guilty and trial Court has acquitted him.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner in his statement confessed alleged offence. Recovery was effected from co-accused Narender. There was no mala fide intention of any Officer. The Disciplinary Authority found inquiry report contrary to evidence on record, thus, petitioner was issued disagreement note which was followed by order of dismissal from service.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was having 28 years’ service to his credit on the date of passing impugned order. He was entitled to pension. The Inquiry Officer found him innocent. The trial Court also did not find him guilty. He was acquitted by trial Court because prosecution failed to prove its case. The Authorities while passing order under Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’) were bound to consider length of service and entitlement of petitioner to pension. The Authorities while passing impugned orders did not consider said aspect. As per Rule 16.3 of PPR, a person cannot be departmentally punished if he is acquitted by trial Court.

7. This Court has adverted to Scope of Rule 16.2 and 16.3 of PPR in “Bala Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.” CWP-18777-2023 decided on 02.04.2025. It has been held that authorities are duty bound to reconsider departmental punishment in case of acquittal of delinquent in criminal proceedings. The relevant extracts of aforesaid judgment read as:-

“7. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short PPR) provides that an enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month unless sentence is quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed from service. The Rule further provides that final departmental order in such cases shall be postponed till th