In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Punjab government to reevaluate the dismissal of several police officers who were previously acquitted in a criminal case. These officers were initially dismissed following a departmental inquiry for allegedly supplying arms to Naxalites. Justice Jagmohan Bansal criticized the casual approach adopted in invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) without fully understanding the scope and titles of these Acts.
Also read-Punjab And Haryana High Court Takes Firm Stand Against Drug Trafficking (lawchakra.in)
The case originated in 2011 when several Punjab policemen were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for purportedly facilitating the sale of arms and ammunition to Naxalites. As the investigation progressed, charges under Section 16 of the UAPA and PMLA were added. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the High Court noted a lack of due diligence in applying these special laws, leading to the acquittal of the accused officers in 2019.
The departmental proceedings against the petitioners and others resulted in their dismissal from service. Although some of the acquitted officers were reinstated, the petitioners were not. The counsel for the petitioners highlighted this discrepancy, noting that other police officials charged with similar allegations were reinstated, and the families of two co-accused who passed away during the trial were granted family pension benefits.
The High Court, considering these submissions, observed that the petitioners faced both departmental and criminal proceedings based on the same allegations. Despite their acquittal, they were not reinstated, unlike some of their co-accused. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ cases in light of Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and the reinstatement orders for other officers involved in the same proceedings.
This ruling underscores the importance of proper legal procedures and the careful application of special laws like the UAPA and PMLA. The Court emphasized that such laws cannot be invoked merely by a letter from the SSP, reflecting a need for thorough legal understanding and adherence to due process in sensitive cases. The decision to reinstate the acquitted officers must be made within three months, as per the Court’s directive.
Representing the petitioners were advocates Balbir K. Saini and Sandeep Bansal, while Aman Dhir appeared as the DAG for Punjab.
