GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in June, 1947, and was confirmed as such after three years. He was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in 1963 and was posted as Station House Officer, Sardar Panipat, district Karnal. In January, 1966, the petitioner was posted at the Police Station, Rajaund. One Shri Ram Saran son of Munshi Jat of village Rehra, who is serving in the Army, made an application through Military authorities against one Bhundu son of Mangal harijan of that village alleging that he had misappropriated Rupees 1500/- which had been advanced to him by his father. This application was sent to the Police Station, Rajaund, for necessary action and report. In order to investigate that complaint, the petitioner called Bhundu to the Police Station, and it is stated by the petitioner that the matter was compromised on the intervention of the members of the brotherhood of the village and a compromise-deed was executed. Bundu, however, filled a complaint under Sections 342, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and Ram Nath (Constable) on the allegation that his thumb-mark had been obtained by Ram Nath (Constable) forcibly after giving him a beating in the Police Station. This complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal, on February 11, 1965, The petitioner was summoned in that complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate for March 12, 1965. On that day, the complainant, Shri Bhundu, was not, present and the petitioner was acquitted under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Bhundu sent a complaint direct to the Home Minister in February, 1965, which was sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police by the Home Minister with a direction to make enquiries in the matter and report the result thereof. The Deputy Inspector General of Police forwarded the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, for enquiry and report, On March 12, 1965, the petitioner was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, at the Rest House, Jaholi, for the purpose of the enquiry. The complainant and the witnesses did not turn up and the Superintendent of Police adjourned th enquiry to April 9, 1965, on which day he recorded the statements of Bhundu, Ratia and Phula. Thereafter, in June, 1965, the Superintendent of Police wrote to the District Magistrate, Karnal, for orders being passed under Rule 16. 38 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) as to whether a departmental enquiry should be made or whether the petitioner should be placed for trial in a Court of law. On June 16, 1965, the District Magistrate directed that the matter should be investigated by a Police Officer to be nominated by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. On receipt of this order, the Superintendent of Police appointed Shri Rambail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, to hold an enquiry. The said officer held the enquiry, and submitted his report on July 15, 1965, to the Superintendent of Police who, forwarded the same to the District magistrate, Karnal, for obtaining orders under Rule 16. 38 (2) of the Rules. On July 30, 1965, the District Magistrate passed orders that a departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, appointed Shri Prem Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, to hold the departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him in his report dated October 15, 1965. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police issued a notice to the petitioner on October 19, 1965, asking him to show cause why the penalty of reduction in rank be not imposed of him. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said show cause notice. This petitioner was filed on November 2, 1965, and was admitted on November 4, 1965, and the passing of the final order was stayed. The written statement has been filed by the Superintendent of Police Shri Brijinder Singh, who had issued the notice in which the objections of the petitioner against the show cause notice and the enquiry held against him have been controverted. At the hearing of the writ petition, however, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that Rule 16. 3, and not Rule 16. 38, applied to the facts of this case because the petitioner had been tried and acquitted in a Court of law at the instance of Bhundu complainant. The proceedings under Rule 16. 38 for obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate and holding an enquiry in pursuance of that sanction were thus uncalled for. Under Rule 16. 3 (2) departmental proceedings, if admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16. 3, could be taken against the petitioner with the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It has been stated in para 12 of the written statement as under:-

(2.) IT has not been disclosed in this written statement why the sanction of the District Magistrate under Rule 16. 38 was required. The fact remains that the enquiry was held by the Superintendent of Police through Shri Prem Kumar in pursuance of the orders of the District Magistrate, which was not required.

(3.) THE important question that has to be determined in this case is whether the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the institution of the departmental proceedings against him. It is admitted that the charge and the evidence in support thereof in the departmental enquiry were the same as in the complaint of Shri Bhundu which was dismissed in default and led to the acquittal of the petitioner has argued that an acquittal under Section 247 of the code of Criminal Procedure because of the absence of the complainant on the date of the hearing, amounts to the accused having been tried and acquitted and has relied on the judgment of Mehar Singh, J. (as my Lord the Chief Justice then was) in Haveli Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1966 Punj 82, but the mere fact that the acquittal of the petitioner amounted to his trial and acquittal does not bar the institution of departmental proceedings, if the case is Governed by one of the five exceptions given in Rule 16. 3 (1 ). These exception are that:-