Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

#1. Present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4287 of 2026 by which, the claim of the appellant that once he has been acquitted of a criminal case, the dismissal on the basis of the departmental enquiry cannot sustain, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

#2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was arrested in an FIR No.129 dated 03.05.2017 under Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana and during the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, a departmental enquiry was also initiated and a dope test was conducted on 24.10.2018 on the basis of the urine sample in which, LPA-864-2026 2 it was proved that the appellant was a drug addict but as he has been acquitted of the criminal proceedings, the departmental proceeding which led to the dismissal from service vide order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala while exercising powers under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 cannot be sustained, which fact has been ignored by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.

#3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

#4. It may be noticed that mere acquittal from the criminal proceedings on technical and procedural grounds does not automatically declare the departmental proceedings as void so as to claim reinstatement in the said services.

#5. As per the settled principle of law, in case departmental proceedings are not held and the criminal proceedings are initiated and criminal proceedings goes in favour of the accused, still the departmental proceedings can be conducted so as to prove the allegations for the reason that the nature and the status of both the proceedings is different and the proof required to prove the allegations in both the proceedings i.e. criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings is entirely different. In order to convict an accused in a criminal proceedings, the proof which is required to prove the guilt of the accused is beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proceedings, the preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove the allegations. LPA-864-2026 3

#6. The said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8414 of 2017 titled as Airports Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, decided on 04.02.2025. The relevant paragraph 34 of the said judgment is as under: “34. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur,28 wherein this Court held as follows: - “15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. ” 28 (1972) 4 SCC 618.” LPA-864-2026 4

#7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law.

#8. In the present case, after the FIR was registered against the appellant, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was dealing with the prohibited substances while serving under police services and keeping in view the urine sample test of the appellant, it was proved that the appellant is a drug addict himself which is sufficient to show that prima facie the appellant was dealing with the drugs. That being so, merely on the basis of the evidence brought before the criminal Court, the allegations could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the same cannot be brought into to declare the departmental proceedings illegal so as to direct reinstatement of the appellant who concededly is a drug addict.

#9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances that the proof which is required to prove the allegations in the departmental proceedings is different than the one required to prove the allegations in the criminal proceedings and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute before this Court the same fact and it was taken into consideration that in the departmental proceedings, the allegations stood proved against the appellant before the action of dismissal was taken against him. Merely that the appellant has been acquitted of the criminal charge against him, he cannot be reinstated into the services on such post by declaring the departmental proceedings as incorrect.

#10. No other argument has been raised. LPA-864-2026 5

#11. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands

#13. disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 16, 2026 harsha (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : No Whether reportable