HEAD CONSTABLE RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as a constable in the Punjab Police on 1.10.1971. After having passed the lower school course in April, 1978, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable in August in the same year. While promoted as MHC in Police Station, Division No. 4, Jalandhar, two criminal cases i.e. F.I.R. No. 398 dated 29.11.1982 and F.I..R. No. 79 dated 9.5.1986 both Under Section 409 of the I.P.C. were registered against him and he was, thereafter, prosecuted for the said offence. The petitioner was, however, acquitted in the first case on 10.8.1988 and in the second case on 17.12.1988. In the meantime, it appears that the case of the petitioner for being sent to the intermediate school course for coming on to promotional list 'D' making him eligible for promotion to the rank of ASI came up for consideration and vide Annexure P1 dated 24.4.1988, 12 Head Constables were confirmed but the petitioner was kept for the reason that there were two criminal cases pending against him. This exercise was repeated vide Annexure P-2 to P-7 in the year 1988-89 and various Head Constables juniors to the petitioner was confirmed as such but the petitioner's confirmation was denied for the reason set out above. After his acquittal in the two cases, the petitioner filed a representation praying that he should now be sent to the Intermediate School Course and on having been denied this benefit once again, he filed C.W.P. No. 3477 of 1989 and this Court in its order dated 16.3.1989 Annexure P-8 directed that the representation filed by the petitioner should be disposed off within 15 days. In compliance with this direction, the S.S.P., Jalandhar vide order dated 31.3.1989 An-nexure P-9 to the petition, declined the claim of the petitioner by observing that his service record had been found to be unsatisfactory in comparison with that of his contemporaries and that as an appeal against acquittal has been filed in the High Court with respect to the F.I.R. No. 398 dated 29.11.1982, the petitioner's claim to confirmation as Head Constable was not tenable. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the High Court through judgment dated 1.5.1991. It appears that after his acquittal by the High Court, the department itself initiated an enquiry against the petitioner on which he got an injunction order from the Civil Court restraining the department from going on with the enquiry proceedings. He also filed C.W.P. No. 7439 of 1991 praying that as he had now been acquitted by the criminal Court, his case for confirmation as Head Constable should be considered and this Court vide its order dated 4.12.1991 held that as the departmental proceedings which has been stayed on an application filed by the petitioner, no meaningful order could be given to him at this stage and a direction was issued that the authorities should consider his case in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court within six months and if the authorities felt any difficulty in complying with the order, they could take appropriate proceedings after having the injunction granted by the Civil Court vacated. It was also made clear that if during the period of six months, the petitioner's case for confirmation was not sent up for consideration, he would be sent for undergoing the intermediate school course commencing on 1.4.1992. As the authorities were unable to get any modification in the interim order granted by the Civil Court which had also been confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by order dated 7.1.1993, the petitioner was sent to the intermediate school course and has also passed the same (August 1992). It is the admitted case that the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the appeal up to the High Court too met with the same fate, with the result that the stay granted by the Civil Court in the initiation of the departmental enquiry has also been vacated.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Mann, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, a departmental enquiry on the same facts and circumstances could not have been initiated as provided under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') as the case of the petitioner did not fall within the exception of (a) to (e) of the Rules. He has also cited Union of India and another v. Yogender Singh, 1996(1) S.L.R. 133, in support of his case.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Gill has pointed out that the Civil Suit impugning the action of the authorities in initiating a departmental enquiry after the petitioner's acquittal by the Criminal Court had been dismissed and as such the same relief could not be claimed in the present writ petition.