Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a retired police officer seeking direction to the State to release his retiral dues that were withheld due to a pending case registered under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (‘Excise Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., allowed the petition and directed release of the retiral dues, holding that no progress had taken place in the case since the last 20 years after the filing of the challan, thus, the police officer could not be held guilty for non-adjudication of the FIR.
Background
In 1993, the petitioner, a police officer, joined the Punjab Police Force as a Special Police Officer (‘SPO’). In 2004, he came to be implicated in two FIRs, one which was registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the second which was under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act.
Ultimately, he was suspended in 2017 on account of circulating some WhatsApp video. He was issued a charge sheet and dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted. It was ordered that he be compulsorily retired from the date of his dismissal from service.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that, evidently, the police officer had been compulsorily retired by the Appellate Authority and acquitted in the criminal case. The State had withheld his retiral dues on the sole ground that FIR under Section 61 of the Excise Act was pending against him. The Court also noted that there was no dispute with respect to the filing of challan before the Trial Court in 2005.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that a period of more than 20 years had elapsed from the date of filing the challan. The State was granted multiple opportunities by this Court to verify the present status of the Excise Act FIR.
The Court further noted that the State was unable to collect records from the Trial Court to support that the challan was actually registered, and the Court proceeded with the matter. As per both parties, the challan was presented before the Trial Court. Furthermore, the Excise and Taxation Department (‘the Department’) clarified that the matter was never compounded at their end.
The Court held that the police officer could not be held guilty for non-adjudication of the aforesaid FIR. The fault lies either with the Police Authorities, the Public Prosecutor, or the Court Staff. Thus, the State had no authority to withhold the retiral dues on account of the pendency of the FIR.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the State to release the retiral dues within two months.
However, the Court clarified that if, within two months, the Department was able to establish that the police officer was held guilty in the aforesaid FIR, the status of the retiral dues would be considered as per law. The Court also clarified that the retiral dues will not carry any interest if payment was made within two months, failing which interest shall be payable at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
The Court further directed the Trial Court to conduct an inquiry and find out the status of the FIR registered under the Excise Act and take appropriate action against the erring officials within two months.
[Inderjit Sharma v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 5637 of 2025, decided on 12-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: R.K. Arora and Jugam Arora
For the respondent: Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
