The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a police officer can face disciplinary proceedings despite a pending criminal case over the same incident, stating that departmental trials are not barred by the existence of a First Information Report (F.I.R.). The court examined the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, determining they supersede earlier regulations that might have prevented simultaneous action.
Legal Basis for Departmental Action
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, regardless of whether the officer has been tried judicially. The court held that the Rules, 1991, were framed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 and superseded all earlier rules on the subject. They are absolute and any provision contrary to them stands superseded.
Disciplinary proceedings are held to ascertain whether the officer concerned is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his official duties by being remiss and negligent. Whether such remissness or negligence forms part of a criminal conduct is decided separately in criminal proceedings, but that cannot be a bar to proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously.
The distinction allows the administration to address official dereliction while the criminal justice system processes potential conspiracy charges. It effectively prioritizes maintaining internal accountability standards within the force structure, even when external criminal investigations are ongoing, similar to how international disability law conferences prioritize accountability.
Case Details and Arguments
The 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. The team was assigned a route for the journey both ways. While returning, the team traveled 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.
Related: The Creator of the First Lab Diamond Ring
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. 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, the petitioner argued that the proceedings were barred by Paragraphs 483, 486, 492 and 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The petitioner claimed 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 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. They are not applicable in this case.