The order imposing penalty by the disciplinary authority has also number been produced.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1581/1988 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated 5.1.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1985, for declaration that the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 1.7.1981 endorsing and reviving that order as also that of the disciplinary authority thereby punishing the respondent herein by imposing a punishment of forfeiture of service on the respondent for a period of two years and the order of the D.I.G., the appellate authority as also the Inspector General of Police, Revisional authority were illegal.
There witnesses stated that they did number know anything in this respect.
For companymission of the alleged offence under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code in the 1 year 1974, he was prosecuted in the year 1979.
The learned Magistrate recorded companyviction of the appellants on the basis of evidence given by Shri Jaswant Singh and Investigating Officer Shri Mohinder Singh.
Action following on judicial acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by criminal companyrt he shall number be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or number unless a the criminal charges has failed on technical ground or In the opinion of the Court or of the Superintendent of Police, the prosecution witnesses have been won over, or c the companyrt has held in its judgment that an offence was actually companymitted and that suspicion rests upon the police officer companycerned, or d the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the Court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charges Additional evidence admissible under Rule 16.25 1 in departmental proceedings is available The report of the Inquiry Officer is number before us.
As numbericed hereinbefore, the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
Respondent herein preferred an appeal, thereagainst, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Patiala by a judgment and decree dated 5.1.1988.
But their alleged guilt.
By a judgment and order dated 8.1.1979, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala allowed the said appeal, holding The learned P.P. has frankly companyceded that he is unable to support the judgment of the learned Magistrate.
However, a criminal appeal was preferred by him.
Respondent was a police companystable.
The charge under Section 170 IPC that the appellant Sucha Singh pretended to hold office of DTO Ropar and did traffic checking partly companyld number be established in the absence of evidence of PW Prem Singh and PW Bant Singh.
Leave granted.
He was companyvicted.
The said suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 29.10.1985.
Both P.W.1 Bant Singh and P.W.2 Prem Singh did number support the prosecution version at trial and companysequently they were declared hostile.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
