BALJINDER PAL KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

                        [2015) 10 S.C.R. 316


A                     BALJINDER PAL KAUR
                                  v.
                STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No.5142 of2009)
B                      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.
                                                            F
                 Case Law Reference

  1999 (2) SCR 257         held inapplicable. Paras 6, 8

  2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 253 held inapplicable.Paras 6, 8
                                                            G
  2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 62 held inapplicable. Paras 6, 8
                                               "
  2013 (13) SCR 432        relied on.          Para 11
  2012 (11) SCR 174        relied on.          Para 12
                                                            H
318         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10S.C.R.


A       1997 (3) SCR 364           relied on.           Para 13

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      5142of2009.

          From the Judgment and Order ~ated 18.07.2008 of the
 8
      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
         s sec 446
    (2006)
                                                                     H
3 (2001) 1 sec 566
320         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1OS.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

        (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case
              are based on identical and similar set of facts and the
 c            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.
 D
        (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
 E            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
 F
             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
 G          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
 H
            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
     on the same charge or on a different charge upon the
                                                                    0
     evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led
     or not, unless: -
      (a)    the criminal charge has failed on technical
             grounds; or                                 E

      (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          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2015) 10S.C.R.


A                    16.25(1) in departmental' proceedings is
                     available."

            (2) ............................................... "

           10. Rule quoted above provides that when a police officer
8
      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
      have turned hostile, and they appear to have been won over.
D
          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
E           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. ...... "
 F
           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 Sidhana 0, 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.