- (1.) THE Petitioner, who is an A. S I. in Punjab Police, has filed the present writ petition for quashing Departmental Enquiry being conducted against him in pursuance of the summary of allegations, a copy of which is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The primary challenge to the Departmental proceedings was on the ground that as per Rule 16 38 of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to be as the 'rules'), the permission of the District Magistrate was required to be obtained, which admittedly in the case in hand, the respondents have not obtained. As such, the enquiry proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at Police Recruitment Training Centre, Jahar Khela, District Hoshiarpur was directed to attend the office of Respondent No. 5 on 19-4-1989 in connection with the Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner presented himself in the office of respondent No. 5 on 26-5-1989 where a summay of allegations was given to him under Rule 16. 24 (1) of the Rules. The charges against the petitioner were that on 9-2-1989 he along with other officials was deputed to escort two prisoners for producing them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha. After the hearing of the case, petitioner consumed liquor alongwith the prisoners as a result of which the officers of Zila Jail, Faridkot refused to accept the prisoners. Thereafter, the petitioner took the prisoners to his official quarter to enable them to spend the night with him The Line Officer, Faridkot took the petitioner and two prisoners from the petitioner's quarter to the Medical Officer, Faridkot for getting them medically examined. Since on that day the Doctors in the Police Lines ware on strike, the medical examination was not possible. Subsequently, the Line Officer, Faridkot, SI Des Raj took the the under trials to Police Station Sadar, Faridkot and put them in lock up. Then he lodged a complaint against the petitioner in the Roznamcha at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot and Police Lines. Later on, he sent a report of the entire incident including a copy of the complaint to respondent No. 2, who ordered a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Section 1624 of the Rules.
(3.) IT was urged that though the petitioner was ready to answer the charges levelled against him in a proceeding under a competent forum, but the action of the respondent No. 2 in initiating this enquiry is contrary to the provisions of Rule 16. 38 of the Rules. Therefore, the petitions seeks the quashing of the entire proceedings on this ground. Mr. P S. Patwalia, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that whenever any complaint is received by the Senior Superintendent of Police which indicates the commission by a -police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relation with the party, Senior Superintendent of Police is required to give immediate information to the District Magistrate who will then decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a Police Officer or made over to a selected Magistrate having the first Class powers.;