Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 532 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Khazan Singh

2005-04-27

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. State of Haryana has filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 2. The short question that arises in the present appeal is to the following effect:- Whether or not the plaintiff-respondent could continue to be punished under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules by the Punishing Authority even after his acquittal by the Criminal Court? 3. In brief the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Khazan Singh respondent was awarded the punishment of censure by the Commandant 2nd Batallion, H.A.P. Madhuban and the allowance of suspension period was restricted to the one already drawn by him after his acquittal by the Criminal Court under Section 354/342, Indian Penal Code, after the compromise entered into between the complainant in the criminal case with the respondent. The only ground taken by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order dated 23.6.1979 awarding the punishment to the plaintiff-respondent was that the acquittal by the Criminal Court was not an honourable acquittal. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed in his favour by the Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.1982. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana in order to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1982. Now the State of Haryana has filed the present appeal wherein challenge has been made to the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that under Rule 16.3(b) of the Rules the Department has the power to take action against the delinquent employee in case of his acquittal by the Criminal Court. 4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that under Rule 16.3(b) of the Rules the Department has the power to take action against the delinquent employee in case of his acquittal by the Criminal Court. It has been contended by him that the Courts below erred in holding that the Department had no power to punish the delinquent employee under Rule 16(3)(b) of the Rules in case of his acquittal by the Criminal Court Rule 16(3)(b) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a 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, whether actually led or not, unless: (a) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** (b) in the opinion of the court or of the Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over, or ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5. A perusal of the above-quoted rule shows that the delinquent employee could be punished departmentally in case he is acquitted by the Court after he won over the prosecution witnesses. However, in the present case though the respondent has been acquitted after a compromise arrived at between him and the complainant, which could only mean that the prosecution witnesses had been won over by him, but the principles of natural justice demand that a person can only be punished or condemned after he has been given the opportunity of hearing. In other words, the punishment were justified only after holding proper inquiry by the Department against the respondent, which has not been done. The punishing authority punished the respondent after his acquittal by the Criminal Court on the basis of a compromise between him and the complainant without conducting any inquiry against him. It means that the respondent has been punished without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Not only this, in the case reported as Head Constable Rachhpal Singh No. 132/Jail v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1998(1) R.S.J. 400, it has been held by this Court that Rule 16.3 itself precludes a departmental inquiry after a police officer has been acquitted by a Criminal Court except in a few situations set out in Clause (a) and (e). It means that even the departmental inquiry is precluded in the event of acquittal of the delinquent employee by the Criminal Court and the Police Officer/Official is believed to have won over the prosecution witnesses. In this view of the matter, the award of the punishment of censure and restricting of the subsistence allowance to the one already drawn by the respondent is held to be against the Rules as well as against the principles of natural justice. 6. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below, which are hereby affirmed. 7. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.