BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders i.e. inquiry report (Annexure P -1), dismissal order (Annexure P -5) and appeal (Annexure P -7). The brief allegations are that while the petitioner was posted in Police Station Sadar, Kurukshetra one Tyre include Rim of the Van was stolen by him on 05/06.11.1993 at night. While the inquiry proceedings and the criminal case against the petitioner proceeded, at one stage, after the inquiry was over further action was deferred to await the decision of the criminal Court. The Court acquitted the petitioner. After his acquittal the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra issued show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed and enclosed an inquiry report therewith. Ultimately the petitioner was dismissed and his statutory appeals were also rejected.

(2.) ON 29.08.2013 the following observation was made: - -

(3.) THE precise stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 the police officer who has been acquitted by the Court of law cannot be proceeded against save in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to have recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the said conditions and only thereafter the matter could have proceeded further. As per him, none of the conditions have been fulfilled. In the present case neither any such satisfaction was recorded by the Superintendent of Police nor such satisfaction was communicated to the petitioner in the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further asserted that not only should such satisfaction be recorded on the file but it must be a part of the show cause notice so that the petitioner can respond to it.