Police Officer Can Face Disciplinary Proceedings Despite Pending Criminal Case Over Same Incident: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer are not barred merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged over the same incident, as Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial whether or not the officer has been tried judicially. It held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and...
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer are not barred merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged over the same incident, as Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial whether or not the officer has been tried judicially.
It held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 cover the subject matter of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and any provision of the Regulations contrary to those Rules stands superseded. It held that the Rules, 1991 were framed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861, superseding all earlier rules on the subject.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“The Rules, 1991, in reference to Section 7 of the Act, 1861, are absolute and any provision contrary thereto in the U.P. Police Regulations stands superseded, i.e., to say that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for remissness or negligence in the discharge of official duties, or for being unfit for the post, cannot be put on hold by any of the provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations. Whether such remissness or negligence forms part of a criminal conduct also has to be decided separately in criminal proceedings, but that cannot be a bar to proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously, which are held to ascertain whether the officer concerned is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his official duties by being remiss and negligent.”
Petitioner, a Sub Inspector posted at Police Line, Fatehgarh, was put in charge of an escort team of five constables to produce an accused, Badan Singh alias Baddo, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II at Ghaziabad. A route was assigned for the journey both ways. While returning, the team travelled by a route other than the one assigned and halted at a hotel named “Mukut Mahal” in Meerut, from where the accused escaped with the help of his accomplices.
An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Brahmpuri, Meerut under Sections 221, 224 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and he was arrested and suspended. A preliminary enquiry found him and the rest of the escort team guilty of negligence and indiscipline. A chargesheet followed, and the enquiry officer, having examined the witnesses named in support of the charge and allowed them to be cross-examined, found the charge proved and recommended dismissal. He was dismissed from service on 31st July 2020.
His appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991 was rejected, and his claim petition was dismissed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, which held that as the officer in charge of the escort team it was his responsibility to see that the assigned route was followed.
Before the High Court, he argued that the proceedings were barred by Paragraphs 483, 486, 492 and 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations, the chargesheet had neither been approved by the punishing authority nor issued with the preliminary enquiry report, and the enquiry officer could not recommend punishment.
Examining Chapter XXXII of the U.P. Police Regulations, the Court observed that Paragraph 489 permits a police officer to be departmentally tried under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 whether or not he has been tried judicially. Paragraph 492, which requires the Superintendent of Police to await the decision of a judicial appeal before deciding on further departmental action, and Paragraph 493, which bars him from re-examining facts in issue at a judicial trial, were held to be attracted only where the criminal trial is over and departmental proceedings are to follow.
The Court noted that a Division Bench in Kedar Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. had held that the Rules, 1991 were not comprehensive enough to bring in the doctrine of total repeal by implication and Paragraphs 492 and 493 of the Regulations still held force.
“We are not in variance with the said proposition of law, but at the same time are of the view that the provisions specifically covered under the Rules, 1991 cannot be negated or made ineffective on the strength of certain provisions contained in the U.P. Police Regulations.”
Observing that the object and scope of the two sets of proceedings are distinct, the Court held that there is no legal bar to their simultaneous continuance. It held that the proceedings here were confined to negligence and dereliction in the discharge of official duties, while the petitioner's alleged involvement in any conspiracy to facilitate the escape was the subject matter of the pending criminal case.
On the recommendation of punishment, the Court examined Appendix I to Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991, which provides that the enquiry officer may, separately from the proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed. It distinguished State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, relied on by the petitioner to argue that an enquiry officer cannot act as prosecutor as well as judge.
“Thus, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as, in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), there was no rule corresponding to the Rules, 1991, which permitted the enquiry Officer to make recommendations regarding the punishment to be imposed upon the charged police officer.”
Noting that the rule permitting such a recommendation had not itself been challenged, the Court held that the enquiry officer commits no illegality in recommending punishment unless it is shown that the disciplinary authority did not independently apply its mind.
Further, it held that the Rules, 1991 do not require the chargesheet to be approved by the punishing authority, and the preliminary enquiry report formed part of the chargesheet as it was specifically referred to therein.
Noting that Rule 8(4)(a) of the Rules, 1991 mandates dismissal for intentionally or negligently allowing a person to escape from police or judicial custody, unless the punishing authority awards a lesser punishment for reasons recorded in writing, the Court held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from no infirmity and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others