Police Official Can Face Departmental Punishment Despite Being Found Innocent in Criminal Investigation and Placed in Column No. 2: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Penalty Against Constable in Prisoner-Escape Case
Case Name: Constable Jasjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 2 September 2026
Citation: CWP-22652 of 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the placement of a police official’s name in Column No. 2 of the report filed in a criminal case does not absolve him of departmental liability arising from the same incident. Criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings operate in distinct fields, pursue different objects and apply different standards of proof. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over findings recorded in a departmental inquiry and cannot reassess the adequacy or reliability of the evidence. Interference is permissible only where the inquiry suffers from lack of jurisdiction, violation of statutory procedure or principles of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, perversity, mala fides, or punishment so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The Court further held that belated representations cannot revive a stale cause of action or overcome unexplained delay and laches.
Summary: Constable Jasjeet Singh joined the Punjab Police in October 2011. On 8 June 2015, he formed part of a police escort party deputed to take undertrial prisoner Bhupinder Singh alias Sonu alias Kangla from Nabha Jail to the District Courts at Amritsar. While the escort party was returning, several armed persons allegedly intercepted its vehicle at gunpoint, forcibly secured the prisoner’s release, snatched the police weapons and escaped.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner and two other members of the escort party under Sections 223, 224, 225, 148 and 149 IPC and the relevant provisions of the Arms Act. The petitioner was suspended, and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. In a separate investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was found innocent. The report recorded that he had objected to the use of a private vehicle for transporting the prisoner and attributed the escape to the negligence of the other officials. Consequently, his name was placed in Column No. 2 of the police report, and he was neither summoned nor tried as an accused. The other two police officials were subsequently convicted under Section 223 IPC.
The departmental inquiry, however, found the petitioner guilty of negligence. After supplying the inquiry report and considering his response to the show-cause notice, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, imposed the punishment of temporary forfeiture of one year of sanctioned service for the purpose of annual increment. The period between 8 June 2015 and 1 September 2015 was ordered to be treated as a period of suspension. His departmental appeal and revision were rejected in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
The petitioner was also denied permission to appear in the Basic Proficiency Test conducted in 2016 because departmental proceedings and the criminal case were then pending against him. After the criminal proceedings concluded in 2022 without his prosecution, he sought reconsideration of the departmental punishment, restoration of salary and increments, and seniority and promotional benefits on the basis of the Basic Proficiency Test. These claims were rejected, leading to the writ petition.
The High Court rejected the contention that the petitioner’s placement in Column No. 2 rendered the departmental punishment unsustainable. It reiterated that a criminal case determines whether an offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a disciplinary inquiry examines whether an employee’s conduct constitutes misconduct or dereliction of official duty. The result of the criminal proceedings does not, by itself, conclude or nullify departmental proceedings. The conviction of the other two members of the escort party also did not exonerate the petitioner from departmental responsibility arising from his admitted membership of that party.
The Court found that the petitioner had been informed of the allegations, permitted to submit his defence, supplied with the inquiry report and given an opportunity to respond to the proposed punishment. He failed to identify any mandatory procedural requirement that had been violated or demonstrate any prejudice caused to him. His general allegation of denial of natural justice was, therefore, rejected.
Reiterating the settled limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters, the Court observed that it could examine the legality of the decision-making process but could not reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own assessment for that of the disciplinary authority. Since the inquiry was conducted by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the findings were supported by material on record, and the punishment was neither arbitrary nor shockingly disproportionate, no interference under Articles 226 and 227 was warranted.
The Court additionally held that the petition was liable to fail on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner’s statutory revision had been rejected on 26 March 2018, but the writ petition was filed only in 2023, after an unexplained delay exceeding five years. Subsequent applications and representations made to the authorities could not revive the stale cause of action or provide a fresh limitation period for challenging the original punishment.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of merit as well as on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The disciplinary punishment, treatment of the relevant period as suspension, rejection of the petitioner’s departmental remedies, and denial of the consequential seniority and promotional claims were left undisturbed.