Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1994 Date of Decision: 8 .1.2009 *** Balkar Singh ... Appellant VS. State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate for Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The question involved in the present Regular Second Appeal is “Whether an acquittal recorded in a criminal case have bearing effect on the Departmental proceedings? Before analyzing the issue, the facts undisputed are that the appellant joined the Police Department on 18.10.1958. During his tenure of service, he along with one Sham Lal was booked in case FIR No.13 dated 17.1.1988, registered at Police Station Sangrur under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for having found keeping in their possession 11 bags each containing 36 Kgs. of poppy husk. The criminal trial against them resulted into their acquittal by dint of judgment dated 24.2.1989 passed by the criminal court. After the verdict of acquittal rendered in favour of the appellant, the department, however, proceeded against him under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules by observing that his acquittal in the criminal case was not honourable. The appellant filed reply to the same and on conclusion of departmental proceedings, the appellant was dismissed from service by virtue of order dated 22.9.1989 Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1994 2 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. The appellant- delinquent preferred to file an appeal before the D.I.G. Police, Patiala Range Patiala but as per communication made to the appellant on 7.3.1990 his said appeal was dismissed. At last the appellant-plaintiff approached the civil court by filing a suit for declaration and therein he challenged the legality and impropriety of both the orders passed by the Punishing as well as Appellate Authority, as referred to above. The basic grouse of the appellant, inter alia, was that since he has been acquitted by the criminal court, therefore, the proceedings initiated under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules stand vitiated since a police official acquitted in a criminal case cannot be dealt with departmentally on the same charge. The suit was contested by the Department and initiation of departmental proceedings and action taken thereupon against the appellant-plaintiff regarding his dismissal from service and rejection of his statutory appeal by the Appellate Authority, was justified. It has been averred that since the appellant-plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal case after extending benefit of doubt and that too on mere technical grounds, there was no bar for initiating departmental proceedings against him, as has been provided under Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules. After consideration of the evidence brought on record by both the parties, the learned trial court took into account the exception provided under Rule 16.3(a) of Punjab Police Rules and conclude that since the acquittal of the appellant in criminal case was on technical ground, Rule 16.3 of Rules ibid does not come in the way of the Department for taking action against the appellant-plaintiff. The learned trial court while placing reliance upon the case law Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1992 (SC) 1981 concluded that since the nature and scope of a criminal case are different from those of any departmental disciplinary proceedings, an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. In totality, the learned trial court, while observing that the enquiry was conducted against the appellant in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and he was given full opportunity to defend himself, concluded that the dismissal of the appellant was legal as also the action of the Appellate Authority in rejection of his appeal and thus, dismissed the suit of the appellant. The appellant then approached the Appellate Court, who also Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1994 3 endorsed the findings returned by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record carefully. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the acquittal in criminal case vitiates the enquiry, entitling the appellant to re- instatement into service. The contention is meritless. It is settled principle of law that for the same mis-conduct, an employee can be sued under criminal law as well as in Departmental proceedings and it cannot be treated as double jeopardy since both are two different and distinguished proceedings and standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as in the criminal court, since in criminal cases it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubts whereas in the departmental proceedings preponderance of probabilities would serve the purpose. In the case of Nelson Motis (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court as held as under:- “5. So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceeding could have been continued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. The nature and scope of.a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding. Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that the acts which led to the notation of the departmental disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which were the subject matter of the criminal case.” Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2005(7) SCC 764 and T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. And others Vs. K. Meera Bai 2006(2) SCC 255. In the case of South Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs. Sapan Kumar Misra 2006(2) SCC 584, the Supreme Court summarily rejected the arguments that no departmental proceedings could be initiated or continued after acquittal in a criminal trial. Therefore, Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1994 4 there is no hesitation in saying that the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected summarily. Now adverting to the case in hand, the judgment of acquittal rendered in the criminal case under NDPS Act indicates that recovery witnesses i.e. SI Sardar Singh and HC Sohan Lal had deposed about search and seizure of poppy husk, but on account of non-compliance of certain mandatory provisions of the Act, the verdict of acquittal has been recorded. In other words, the acquittal was on technical grounds. The same witnesses reiterated during the departmental proceedings as well. The appellant was serving in the disciplinary force where such like mis-conduct is considered extremely serious and gravest. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal court does not warrant that order of dismissal passed by the competent authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is concluded that on the same evidence and the same charge the appellant could have been found guilty in the departmental proceedings. The issue is thus, answered against the appellant and the instant appeal, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 8,2009 Jiten