SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure-P3) passed by Inspector General of Police (South Range), Rewari, whereby 15% cut in the pension has been imposed and order dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P5) passed by Director General of Police, Haryana whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as ASI in Haryana Police and the promoted to the rank of SI and then further promoted as Inspector. He has challenged the orders dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure-P3) & dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P5) vide which 15% cut in the pension has been imposed and his appeal against impugned order was dismissed. He was booked in an FIR No. 17 dated 07.07.2012 under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at a Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. On the same set of allegations, the departmental enquiry was also ordered. It comes out that the Enquiry Officer after following the procedure submitted the enquiry report dated 28.02014 (Annexure-P2) holding the petitioner guilty. In the meanwhile, in the criminal trial, the Special Judge, Palwal vide order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure-P1) acquitted the accused-petitioner, but, thereafter, in the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure-P3) punishment was imposed by the Inspector General of Police imposing 15% cut in the pension against which an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by Director General of Police, Haryana vide order daed 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P5).

(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that once the petitioner get acquitted in the criminal case, he could not be punished departmentally as laid down in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana and that the order under Rule 2.2 (a) Volume II, Punjab Civil Service Rules applicable to Haryana could not be passed as done by the Appellate Authority.