RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for, so as to quash the order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P6), vide which the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service passed by respondent No. 2 has since been affirmed and consequently the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) PETITIONER was engaged as Constable with the Punjab Police. He was dismissed from service on account of misconduct as he was found drunk on duty, vide order dated 05.06.2007 (Annexure P1). His guilt was established in a departmental inquiry, in which he was afforded due opportunity to participate and defend himself. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 25.07.2007 (Annexure P2). Likewise, the revision preferred by the petitioner, too, met the same date and was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P3). The matter was not carried any further by the petitioner. The petitioner was also tried and convicted pursuant to Calendar No. 13 -A dated 10.03.2007, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 (for short 'the Act') and fined to the tune of Rs. 50/ - and in the event of default, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days. However, in a revision preferred against the said judgement, petitioner was acquitted of the charge and his conviction was set aside by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure P4). And, it was only thereafter, he again, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Roopnagar, and prayed for his reinstatement, citing his acquittal in a criminal case. On a consideration of the matter, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure P5) as the petitioner was merely acquitted viz -a -viz the offences under Section 34 of the Act, whereas he was dismissed from service, for he was found drunk on duty and created nuisance at a public place and disrupted the free flow of traffic. A revision preferred against the order dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure P5), was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Zonal -1, Punjab, Patiala, vide order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P6). This is how, as indicated above, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) ALL what has been urged by counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was acquitted of the same charges in a criminal case vide judgment dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure P4), petitioner was required to be reinstated in service. In reference to Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules'), he submits that once he has been tried and acquitted by a criminal Court, the punishment inflicted upon him, pursuant to a departmental inquiry, is vitiated.