2015 (9) TMI 1698 - SC - Indian Laws

Guilty of charge that appellant took ₹ 8.00 lacs from one Gurjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh of District Ludhiana, and got him sent illegally to United States of America - offences punishable Under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and Under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules provides that when a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge subject to certain conditions. In the present case, as is evident from Rule 16.3, requirement of not punishing the officer departmentally is not absolute, and it hinges on either of the five conditions mentioned above (a) to (e) . From the copy of the order of acquittal passed by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana (Annexure P-6), it is evident that the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, and they appear to have been won over. In Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana 1997 (3) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT , this Court has observed that it is true that the Respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically gave him the right to be reinstated into the service. There are no illegality in the order passed by the High Court declining to interfere with the order of dismissal from service on the basis of evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal from service based on departmental enquiry findings despite criminal trial acquittal.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the High Court's judgment upholding the dismissal of the appellant, a former Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police, based on a departmental enquiry finding her guilty of accepting money and facilitating illegal immigration. Despite being acquitted in a criminal trial, the departmental proceedings led to her dismissal. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in not quashing her dismissal post-acquittal, citing previous judgments allowing simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings. However, the court noted Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, which permits departmental action post-acquittal under specific circumstances, such as witness tampering or additional evidence. The court emphasized that the standard of proof differs in criminal and departmental proceedings, with acquittal not automatically entitling reinstatement.

The court referred to precedents like Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, highlighting the varying standards of proof in criminal and departmental cases. It also cited Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, emphasizing that acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee reinstatement, especially when service rules lack provisions for it. The court further referenced Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, stating that acquittal does not inherently lead to reinstatement. Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the High Court's decision not to interfere with the dismissal based on the departmental enquiry's evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.