### Acquittal After Evidence Appreciation Barring Technical Non-Compliance Precludes Departmental Prosecution Under Rule 12(a)

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police appointed in 2009, was implicated in FIR No. 296/2021 for attempted robbery.

Following a preliminary inquiry, he was dismissed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The Tribunal later set aside the dismissal in OA No. 610/2023, granting respondents liberty to initiate proceedings according to law.

Upon reinstatement, the applicant was acquitted by the Trial Court on 07.06.2022 because the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove the case and witnesses turned hostile.

Despite this acquittal, the respondents initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings on 30.07.2024 and placed his name on the "Secret List of Doubtful Integrity".

The applicant challenged these actions as a violation of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

1. Whether the applicant's acquittal in the criminal case constitutes an "acquittal on technical grounds" under Rule 12(a) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

2. Whether the respondents could legally initiate departmental proceedings on the same charges following a judicial acquittal where witnesses were not proved to have been "won over".

Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which prohibits punishing a police officer departmentally on charges for which they have been judicially acquitted, unless specific exceptions (e.g., technical grounds, witnesses being won over, or additional evidence) are met.

Full Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh Anr. v. GNCTD.

The Delhi High Court precedents in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Satyapal Singh Yadav and George N.S. v. Commissioner of Police establish that acquittal due to lack of evidence or hostile witnesses is a "merit-based" or "honourable" acquittal and cannot be categorized as a "technical" acquittal (such as lack of sanction or limitation).

The Tribunal examined the Trial Court’s judgment, noting that nine witnesses were examined and the court found "not even an iota of evidence" against the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that under Rule 12(a), a "technical ground" refers to procedural failures like lack of prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC, not a failure of the prosecution to prove its case.

The Tribunal held that a witness turning hostile does not automatically mean they were "won over" by the accused; there must be a specific finding of overt or covert acts of inducement or threat by the officer, which was absent here.

Consequently, since the acquittal was based on an appreciation of evidence (or lack thereof), it barred departmental proceedings on the same charges.

The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the impugned orders initiating disciplinary proceedings and placing the applicant on the secret list of doubtful integrity.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant all consequential benefits, including promotion, seniority, and arrears, within six weeks.

No order as to costs was made.