Punjab & Haryana HC Raps State For Biased Probe Against Cops Accused Of Taking Bribe In Drugs Case, Refers Case To NCB

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the order of punishment of forfeiture of three increments with permanent effect passed against a Haryana Police Officer for allegedly taking bribe to settle a drugs case.

It was alleged that the Head constable demanded a sum of ₹20 Lakhs to settle the matter wherein 10 Kg ganja was recovered from a house. According to the complaint the matter was settled for ₹16 Lakhs. A sum of ₹13 Lakhs was paid on the same day and ₹3 Lakhs was to be paid on the next date. The complainant did not pay said amount and decided to expose the petitioner. He could not be exposed because he got clue and did not come to collect the remaining amount, added the complaint. 

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "as the respondent by way of affidavit has expressed its inability to proceed with respect to recovery of ganja and payment of Rs.13,00,000/-, this Court finds it appropriate to refer the matter to Additional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh to examine the question of recovery of 10 kg ganja as well as payment of Rs.13,00,000."

The Court noted that the respondent is not inclined to take action either under NDPS Act or PC Act against the complainant and her accomplice. As per complainant and her accomplice, ganja was recovered from their possession and they had paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- to the petitioner.

"The respondent has taken allegations of complainant very casually though were very serious. There is nothing on record disclosing source of information of DSP. The version of DSP/source report was para materia with statements made by complainant and her accomplice during the course of inquiry," the judge observed.

It further added that the complainant and her accomplice categorically stated that ganja was recovered and a sum of Rs.13 lakh was paid to the petitioner. If the petitioner was innocent and neither ganja was recovered nor cash was paid, it was un- necessary embarrassment to him on the part of disgruntled family.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Head Constable Joginder Singh challenging the order whereby Superintendent of Police order of punishment of forfeiture of three increments with permanent effect, considering that the enquiry in case of corruption, initiated against him.

After examining the submissions and material available on record, the Court opined, "if there was actual recovery of ganja and bribe was accepted, it was serious offence on the part of petitioner and his team members. The respondent has saved its officer. The respondent initiated departmental proceeding though in view of admission of commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act, FIR was bound to be registered."

Perusing the impugned order, the Court observed, "Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of hearing. The recording of reasons in order is based upon the established principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. It operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of power. The reasons in order means link between material which the forum considered while reaching the conclusion and reveals a rational nexus between the two."

"Justice demands disclosure of reasons for the decisions where the rights of the person are infringed," the judge highlighted.

Justice Bansal highlighted that the the Appellate Authority has passed impugned and as per Rule 16.31 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, it was "duty bound to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Appellate Authority has failed to discharge his duty in true spirit."

Stating that it is evident that Appellate Authority has acted mechanically and there was no attempt to examine version of the petitioner and record findings and in view of Apex Court rulings, the Court held that "the authorities have miserably failed to act as Quasi Judicial Authorities, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority to reconsider appeal of the petitioner."

Mr. Mohinder Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 114

Click here to read/download the order