Punjab Police duty-bound to review punishment against cop post acquittal: High court
In the case in hand, the petition was from one Jarnail Singh, who had approached the Punjab and Haryana high court in March 2019. He had sought quashing of a March 1, 2016, order whereby after departmental probe, a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that authorities are duty-bound to pass a fresh order on punishment awarded after departmental probe, if a cop is acquitted in the related criminal case pursuant to which departmental probe was initiated.
“…(from) Punjab Police Rules, it is quite evident that in case of setting aside of conviction, the officer empowered to appoint is duty-bound to review the officer’s case. The original as well as appellate order was passed prior to judgment of acquittal, thus, neither original nor appellate authority had advantage to look at findings of trial court,” the bench of justice Jagmohan Bansal observed while remanding back the matter of a cop to reviewing authority to take a fresh decision on punishment awarded.
In the case in hand, the petition was from one Jarnail Singh, who had approached the Punjab and Haryana high court in March 2019. He had sought quashing of a March 1, 2016, order whereby after departmental probe, a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him.
He got entangled in a corruption case two months after his appointment in 2013 when an FIR was registered against him by the state vigilance bureau, Ludhiana, in May. Pursuant to this, a departmental probe was initiated against him and in March 2016 senior superintendent of police, Ludhiana, imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, later upheld by the Appellate Authority in January 2017. However, upon trial in the corruption case, he was acquitted in May 2017.
In the high court, he had argued that as per Rule 16.2 read with 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, the punishment awarded by departmental authorities needs to be reviewed in light of judgment of acquittal.
The government counsel, on the other hand, could not deny that both the orders were passed prior to judgment of acquittal and that his case was reviewed.
Acquittal doesn’t provide immunity from department action
The court observed that the acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action. “A police officer may be subjected to departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action,” it added.
Rule 16.3 provides that upon a judicial acquittal, a cop shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge unless the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds, in the opinion of the court or of the superintendent of police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over, the court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned and that the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the court etc.
Now, the court has remanded back the matter and directed that authorities review the case within six months and pass a fresh order.