Departmental Proceedings Premised on Identical Facts Cannot Survive Subsequent Judicial Acquittal on Merits

The petitioner, a Constable in the Civil Police, was arrested and suspended on April 11, 2018, following Case Crime No. 97/2018 under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting a bribe.

Despite a previous court direction in 2019 to consider whether departmental proceedings could proceed simultaneously with the criminal trial, the disciplinary authority passed a punishment order of dismissal/removal on February 13, 2021, after a 14-month delay.

The appellate authority subsequently upheld this order on April 27, 2021.

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted by a Special Judge, P.C. Act on October 30, 2025, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority violated judicial proprietary by failing to adhere to the time limit and specific legal considerations directed by the High Court in the previous writ proceedings.

2. Whether departmental punishment can be sustained against a police officer under the U.P. Police Regulations following an acquittal by a criminal court on the same set of facts.

The Court primarily applied Regulations 486, 492, and 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

Regulation 486(1) is a mandatory provision and a condition precedent for initiating departmental trials in cognizable cases as established in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya (1961).

Under Regulation 493, the findings of a criminal court are final and cannot be re-examined in departmental proceedings.

The Court further relied on the Full Bench decision in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2013), which mandates that an employer must seek a court-ordered extension if an inquiry is not concluded within the stipulated time frame.

It also followed Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. (2005), which clarifies that the U.P. Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, do not supersede the mandatory protections of the Police Regulations.

The Court found that the disciplinary authority acted in flagrant violation of the High Court’s order dated December 13, 2019.

The authority failed to pass a final order within the two-month period and did not seek an extension, rendering the delayed order unsustainable under the Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi doctrine.

The authority failed to provide a reasoned finding on why the Babu Ram Upadhyaya and Kedar Nath Yadav precedents did not apply, treating the Court's mandate with a "mechanical and non-speaking approach".

Substantively, since the petitioner was acquitted of all criminal charges on merits—specifically regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe—the findings of the Special Judge became binding on the department under Regulation 493.

The Court held that the department could not "go behind" the acquittal to sustain a punishment based on the same facts.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment order dated February 13, 2021, the appellate order dated April 27, 2021, and the inquiry report. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a Constable in the Civil Police with full back wages, allowances, and consequential service benefits effective from the date of his initial suspension, April 11, 2018.