LexBALJINDER PAL KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 enqui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.