BALJINDER PAL KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 316, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 316 
BALJINDER PAL KAUR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.5142 of2009) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Punjab Police Rules: Rule 16.3- Dismissal from service 
C - Allegation that appellant-Assistant Sub Inspector made 
arrangement for illegally sending few persons to USA -
Disciplinary enquiry held and appellant found guilty and 
dismissed from service - Criminal case also filed against 
the appellant in which she was ultimately acquitted by Special 
0 
Court - High Court refused to quash the order of dismissal 
of appellant from service - On appeal, held: The order of 
acquittal by Special Court was that the prosecution witnesses 
turned hostile and they appeared to have been won over-
rule 16. 3(b) provides that when a police officer has been tried 
E and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished 
departmentally on the same charge unless in the opinion of 
court, the prosecution witnesses have been won over- There 
was, thus, no illegality in the order of the High Court declining 
to interfere with the order of the dismissal of service. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Rule 16.3 provides that when a police of-
ficer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he 
shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge 
G subject to certain conditions. In the present case, as is 
evident from Rule 16.3, requirement of not punishing the 
officer departmentally is not
absolute, and it hinges on 
either of the five conditions enumerated in clause (a) to 
H (e). The condition in Clause (b) is that in the opinion of 
316
BALJINDER PAL KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND 
317 
OTHERS 
the court or of the Superintendent of Police, the pros-
A 
ecution witnesses have been won over. From the copy 
of the order of acquittal passed by the Special Court, it 
is evident that the prosecution witnesses have turned 
hostile, and they appeared to have been won over. There 
is no illegality in the order passed by the High Court de-
B 
clining to interfere with the order of dismissal from ser-
vice on the basis of evidence recorded in the departmen-
tal enquiry. [Paras 9, 10 and 14] [321-E-F; 322-C; 323-G] 
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. 
C 
and another 1999 (2) SCR 257: (1999) 3 SCC 
679; G.M. Tankv. StateofGujaratandothers2006 
(2) Suppl. SCR 253: (2006) 5 SCC 446; Jasbir 
Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and others 2006 (8) 
Suppl. SCR 62: (2007) 1 SCC 566 - held inappli-
D 
cable. 
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another 
v. MeharSingh 2013 (13) SCR432: (2013) 7 SCC 
685; Deputy Inspector General of Police and 
E 
another v. S. Samuthiram 2012 (11) SCR 174: 
(2013) 1 sec 598; Union of India and another v. 
Bihari Lal Sidhana 1997 (3) SCR 364: (1997) 4 
sec 385 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1999 (2) SCR 257 
held inapplicable. Paras 6, 8 
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 253 held inapplicable.Paras 6, 8 
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 62 held inapplicable. Paras 6, 8 
2013 (13) SCR 432 
2012 (11) SCR 174 
relied on. 
relied on. 
" Para 11 
Para 12 
F 
G 
H
318 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10S.C.R. 
1997 (3) SCR 364 
relied on. 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
5142of2009. 
8 
From the Judgment and Order ~ated 18.07.2008 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in C.W. P. No. 
12307 of2008. 
Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Appellant. 
C 
Sanchar Anand, AAG, Apoorv Singhal! Kuldip Singh for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.1. This appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 18. 7.2008, passed by the High Court 
of Punjab and ~aryana, Chandigarh, whereby said Court has 
dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No. 12307 of2008, filed by 
the appellant, and declined to interfere with the order of her 
E dismissal from service. 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Baljinder Pal 
F 
Kaur was Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police. She 
was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.5.2005, after 
departmental enquiry was held and she was found guilty of 
ch;:irge that she took Rs.8.00 lacs from one Gurjit Singh son of 
Bahadur Singh of District Ludhiana, and got him sent illegally 
G to United States of America, with her husband Sukhdev Singh 
@ Sukha and three others. 
4. From the papers on record, it reveals that apart from 
initiation of departmental enquiry, a First Information Report 
H No. 81 was registered against the appellant on 16.12.2003
BALJINDER PAL KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND 
319 
OTHERS [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
with Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, in respect of offences A 
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 1208 of Indian Penal 
Code (IPC) and under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation 
charge sheet was filed against her in the court. Meanwhile, in 
the departmental enquiry, statements of witnesses of the B 
department, and that of defence produced on behalf of the 
appellant, were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, who submitted 
his report dated 8.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) with the finding that 
the appellant was guilty of the charge. An opportunity of hearing 
was granted to the appellant also before awarding the C 
punishment of dismissal. The departmental appeal was 
dismissed on 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), as mentioned 
above, whereafter the appellant availed remedy of filing 
revision before Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar, and D 
the same was dismissed by said authority on 8.5.2006 
(Annexure P-5). Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed by the 
appellant before the Director General of Police, without any 
success. 
5. On the other hand, the criminal trial proceeded before E 
the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, in which the appellant was 
ultimately acquitted vide order dated 23.2.2007. 
6. It is argued before us on behalf of the appellant that 
after acquittal of the appellant by the trial court, the High Court F 
has erred in law
in not allowing the writ petition seeking 
quashing of dismissal of the appellant from service .. Reliance 
is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decisions 
of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthonyv. Bharat Gold Mines 
Ltd. and another1, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and G 
others2, and Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and 
others3. 
1 (1999) 3 sec 679 
2 (2006) s sec 446 
3 (2001) 1 sec 566 
H
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 O S.C.R. 
A 
7. In paragraph 22 of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), 
this Court has culled out following principles: -
"(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a 
criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is 
B 
no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, 
though separately 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case 
are based on identical and similar set of facts and the 
charge in the criminal case against the delinquent 
employee is of a grave nature which inv.olves 
complicated questions of law and fact, it would be 
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the 
conclusion of the criminal case. 
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is 
grave and whether complicated questions of fact and 
law are involved in that case, will depend upon the 
nature of offence, the nature of the case launched 
against the employee on the basis of evidence and 
material collected against him during investigation or 
as reflected in the charge-~heet. 
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be 
considered in isolation to stay the departmental 
proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact 
that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly 
delayed. 
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is 
being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, 
even if they were stayed on account of the pendency 
of the criminal case, can be
resumed and proceeded 
with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if 
the employee is found not guilty his honour may be 
vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the
BALJINDER PAL KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND 
321 
OTHERS [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 
A 
8. The law laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) 
is followed in rest of the cases referred to above, i.e. G.M. 
Tank (supra) and Jasbir Singh (supra). But in view of the 
facts and circumstances of the present case before us, we B 
are of the opinion that the above mentioned cases are of little 
help to the appellant. 
9. What is relevant in the present case which distinguishes 
the case of the appellant from the above mentioned cases is c 
Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, which reads as under: -
"16.3 Action following on a judicial acquittal: - (1) 
When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a 
criminal court he shall not be punished departmentally 0 
on the same charge or on a different charge upon the 
evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led 
or not, unless: -
(a) 
the criminal charge has failed on technical 
E 
grounds; or 
(b) 
in the opinion of the court or of the Superintendent 
of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been 
won over; or 
F 
(c) 
the Court has held in its judgment that an offence 
was actually committed and that suspicion rests 
upon the police officer concerned; or 
(d) 
the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses G 
facts unconnected with the charge before the 
court which justify departmental proceedings on 
a different charge; or 
(e) 
additional evidence admissible under
rule H

322 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10S.C.R. 
16.25(1) in departmental' proceedings is 
available." 
(2) ............................................... " 
8 
10. Rule quoted above provides that when a police officer 
has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not 
be punished departmentally on the same charge subject to 
certain conditions. In the present case, as is evident from Rule 
16.3, requirement of not punishing the officer departmentally 
c is not absolute, and it hinges on either of the five conditions 
mentioned above [(a) to (e)]. From the copy of the order of 
acquittal passed by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana 
(Annexure P-6), it is evident that the prosecution witnesses 
D 
E 
F 
have turned hostile, and they appear to have been won over. 
11. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another 
v. Mehar Singh', this Court, in paragraph 24, has observed 
as under: -
"24 ........... While the standard of proof in a criminal case 
is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a 
departmental proceeding is preponderance of 
probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal 
because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not 
acquittals on merit. ...... " 
12. In Deputy Inspector General of Police and another 
v. S. Samuthiram5, this Court, in paragraph 26, has held as 
under:-
G 
"26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any 
provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an 
employee is honourably
acquitted by a criminal court, no 
right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit 
H • c2013i 7 sec 685 
• c2013) 1 sec 598
BALJINDER PAL KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND 
323 
OTHERS [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.) 
including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of A 
proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal 
court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary 
proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the 
onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the 
prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond B 
reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be 
innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof 
required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not 
required in a disciplinary proceedings and 
preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may C 
be cases where a person is acquitted for technical 
reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses 
since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In 
the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to 0 
examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground 
that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, 
therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of 
doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, 
the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal E 
court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim 
reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not 
provide so." 
13. In Union oflndia and anotherv. Bihari Lal Sidhana0, 
F 
this Court has observed that it is true that the respondent was 
acquitted by the criminal court but
acquittal does not 
automatically gave him the right to be reinstated into the service. 
14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any 
illegality in the order passed by the High Court declining to G 
interfere with the order of dismissal from service on the basis 
of evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry. 
• (1997) 4 sec 385 
H

324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
15. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 
No order as to costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal dismissed.