Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict

“Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Trial Cannot Erase Departmental Misconduct” –  In a firm reaffirmation of service jurisprudence governing disciplined forces, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, on 12/02/2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by a dismissed Punjab Police constable who sought reinstatement after being acquitted in an NDPS case.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that acquittal in a criminal trial does not ipso facto entitle a government servant to reinstatement. The Court emphasised that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings operate in “distinct spheres” and are governed by different standards of proof.

The Court upheld the order dated 23.06.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against dismissal and declined to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Constable Dismissed After NDPS Arrest

The petitioner, Davinder Singh, joined the Punjab Police as a Constable on 22.12.2011. In May 2017, he was implicated in FIR No.129 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sarmala, District Ludhiana, allegedly involving possession of 15 grams of narcotic substance.

He was suspended on 04.05.2017 and subsequently dismissed from service on 29.01.2019 under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. His appeal before the Inspector General of Police was rejected on 05.08.2019.

Meanwhile, he faced criminal trial and was acquitted on 05.03.2024. Relying upon this acquittal, he sought reinstatement before the Director General of Police. The request was rejected on 23.06.2025, leading to the present writ petition.

Trial Court Findings: Acquittal on Procedural Lapses

The High Court examined the Trial Court’s reasoning in detail, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan.

The Trial Court had pointed out serious discrepancies including:

a gap in the prosecution’s chain of custody, contradictions regarding the sample carrier to the Forensic Science Laboratory,

absence of clarity about ownership of the vehicle, and reliance on a confessional statement hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

Ultimately, the Trial Court concluded: “Prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused… beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by extending benefit of doubt, accused Davinder Singh stands acquitted.”

“Not an Honourable Acquittal”: High Court’s Key Finding

Justice Bansal clarified that the Trial Court had not declared the recovery false or fabricated. The acquittal was based on procedural infirmities and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court observed: “Court has not concluded that narcotic substance was never recovered from him. He has been acquitted on technical and procedural grounds.”

Significantly, during departmental proceedings, the petitioner was subjected to a dope test on 24.10.2018 — nearly one and a half years after his arrest — and was found positive for morphine/buprenorphine.

The Court held that this circumstance: “Establishes that he was in habit of consuming drugs.”

For a police official, such conduct was found inconsistent with the discipline and integrity required in service.

Departmental Inquiry and Criminal Trial: Two Different Standards

Relying upon authoritative precedents including Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA, and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, the Court reiterated the well-settled distinction:

“Criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty owed to society, whereas departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.”

The Court further emphasised: “Conviction in criminal trial rests upon proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt whereas punishment in departmental proceedings rests upon preponderance of probabilities.”

Under Rule 16.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, the satisfaction of the Inquiry Officer is sufficient to establish charges; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.

Limited Scope of Judicial Review Under Articles 226/227

Justice Bansal underscored that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings. Judicial review is confined to examining whether:

principles of natural justice were followed, there was some evidence supporting findings, statutory rules were complied with, findings were perverse, or punishment was shockingly disproportionate.

The Court found no such infirmity. Importantly, the Court summarised guiding principles, holding that:

“It is duty of the Court to examine findings of criminal court and it should not sway by use of expression ‘acquittal’ or ‘honourable acquittal’.”

Only where charges, evidence and findings are identical and the acquittal completely negates the misconduct, can departmental action be set aside.

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the Court held that acquittal on benefit of doubt does not obliterate departmental findings based on independent assessment of evidence and conduct.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the dismissal order was upheld.

The judgment reinforces a crucial principle in service law — particularly for disciplined forces like the police — that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically wipe out departmental misconduct. Discipline in public service remains governed by its own evidentiary standards and institutional expectations.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026