JUDGMENT
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner, who is working as a Constable in 1st Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Ambala, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commandant, 1st Battalion, Ambala City imposing a punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect on the basis of the regular departmenta inquiry held against him and order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by Inspector General of Police, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban confirming the order by exercising the powers of appellate authority.
2. The allegations against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings were that while posted at Police Post Mouli, District Panchkula on 28.3.2003 for law and order duty, he committed the act of misconduct and obsceneness by teasing school girls along with his associates C. Sukhdev Singh and Randeep Singh etc., which had let down the image of the department. F.I.R. 93 dated 28.3.2003 under Section 294 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 14 witnesses were examined. The petitioner was given an opportunity to examine 2 defence witnesses. After enabling him to file written defence, inquiry report dated 16.9.2003 was submitted holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. A show cause notice for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was issued and after considering the reply to the show cause notice, instead of inflicting the punishment of dismissal, with an object to give a chance for improvement to the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect was inflicted on him.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide judgment dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure P-7) and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) will, be applicable. Learned Counsel has further urged that the order of punishment has been passed without proper, appreciation of evidence and wrongly recording that the petitioner has admitted the occurrence before D.S.P. Desh Bandhu during verification of the facts. He has further argued that the Punishing Authority has wrongly recorded in order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure P-5) that the petitioner has admitted his misconduct and had assured that such misconduct will not be repeated in future and the petitioner had sought a chance for improvement.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the detailed inquiry report dated 27.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) running into 30 pages, which has been prepared after considering in detail the evidence of the witnesses and the defence witnesses after affording an opportunity in accordance with the rules and issuing a show cause notice the impugned order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure P-5).
5. Re-appreciation of evidence led in the departmental proceedings and arriving at a different conclusion is not permissible at this stage. It is sufficient to mention that it is not a case of ‘no evidence’ against the petitioner. The petitioner has been held guilty on the basis of the appreciation of statements of 14 witnesses.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural lacuna in the departmental proceedings. So far as the applicability of Rule 16.3 of the Rules is concerned, we are of the firm opinion that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case i.e. F.I.R. No. 93 dated 28.3.2003 under Section 294 C.P.C. is on the basis of the prosecution witnesses having been won over by the petitioner and his co-accused.
7. The petitioner was charged for the mild allegations under Section 294 C.P.C. for committing obsceneness by uttering obscene words and making obscene signals towards girls and causing annoyance to them in general public, whereas in the departmental proceedings the petitioner was charged not only for the reason of teasing the girls but also for the shameful act dated 28.3.2003 when public in a large number raised slogans against the department and blocked the road because of which the image of the police department was lowered. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts, which are to some extent unconnected with the charge before the Court, which justified the departmental proceedings on a different charge. Rule 16.3 of the Rules reads thus:
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 departmental 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 grounds; or
(b) in the opinion of the court or of the Superintendent of police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or
(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 facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or
(e) additional evidence admissible under Rule 16.25(1) in departmental proceedings is available.
(2) Departmental proceedings admissible under Sub-rule (1) may be instituted against lower Subordinates by the order of the Superintendent of police but may be taken against Upper Subordinates only with the sanction of Deputy Inspector General of Police and a police officer against whom such action is admissible shall not be deemed to have been honourably acquitted for the purpose of Rule 7.3 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume 1, Part 1.
8. On appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner falls in the exceptions a, b and d of Rule 16.3 of the Rule, as such Rule 16.3 will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is observed that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force and his involvement in the act of teasing school girls along with his associates is certainly a shameful act. Enough leniency has been shown to the petitioner by imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect instead of dismissing him from service.
9. There is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure P-5) of the Punishing Authority and order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by the appellate authority.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is without merit and is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. In case the costs are recovered, the same shall be deposited with the Haryana Legal Service Authority.
11. Copy of the order be sent to Secretary, Haryana Legal Service Authority for information.