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

Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 Kuldip Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, 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 orders dated 15.01.2010, 24.10.2011, 18.06.2013 and 30.08.2013.

2. The petitioner in 2002 was posted as Head Constable (HC with Punjab Police. He was implicated in FIR No.360 dated 30.10.2002 registered under Sections 18, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). There was allegation against him that he was possessing 1 Kg Opium. He was subjected to departmental inquiry. He was found guilty in the departmental inquiry. He was issued show cause notice proposing punishment, however, proceedings were kept pending awaiting decision of trial Court in aforesaid FIR. He was acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2008. Despite acquittal by trial Court, he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of 05 years regular service for increments vide order dated 15.01.2010 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. He preferred appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2011. He unsuccessfully preferred revision before Inspector General of Police (IGP). He further filed mercy petition under Rule 16.32 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2013 passed by Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was acquitted by trial Court, thus, there was no occasion to inflict impugned punishment. As per Rule 16.3 of PPR, if an Officer is acquitted by trial Court, he cannot be departmentally punished. Case of petitioner does not fall within exceptions carved out under Rule 16.3 of PPR, thus, he was entitled to be exonerated by Disciplinary Authority. There was another Official namely Lal Singh who was also implicated in a criminal case. Allegation against Lal Singh was also of possessing 1 Kg Opium. The trial Court acquitted Lal Singh and respondent reinstated him with back wages and without punishment. There were two material witnesses before trial Court as well as Inquiry Officer. Trial Court considered statement of material witnesses and found contradiction. The Disciplinary Authority was bound by the findings of trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was acquitted on technical grounds. He was primarily acquitted on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act.

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

6. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 12.04.2008 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“Moreover, it is specifically stated by ASI Darshan Singh in his cross examination that personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO at the instance of the DSP on the ground that accused may be having more contraband in his possession and likewise Inspector Mukhwinder Singh stated in his cross examination that he conducted the personal search of the accused at the instance of DSP on the ground as to whether there was any more opium with the accused or not. It rather shows that personal search of the accused was not taken as merely jamatalashi at the time of the formal arrest of the accused but personal search of the accused was taken on the suspicion that accused may be in possession of some more opium and as such, section 50 of the act is fully applicable to the case in hand which has not been properly complied with in this case due to partial officer and