A.K. Goel, J. - (1.) The respondent -plaintiff was constable and was dismissed from service on 24.5.19732, against which the appeal and revision of the respondent plaintiff were dismissal on 9.1,1974 and 7.8.1974. He filed the suit challenging the order of dismissal alleging that he had been recruited on 2.6.1948 and a complaint was made against him on 20.8.1972 alleging that he had consumed liquor. After inquiry, it was held that the misconduct alleged against the plaintiff was duly proved. The defendants contested the suit.
(2.) The trial court hold that the enquiry had been duly held against the plaintiff and the order of punishment was rightly passed. The lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that the order of the District Magistrate, declining the grant of sanction for prosecution and ordering the departmental enquiry was not valid and was contrary to provisions of Rule 16.38(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The said order is as under: - "I have gone through the preliminary enquiry report of the Enquiry officer and other relevant papers placed before me. Keeping in view the facts collected so far, it will not be advisable to launch judicial prosecution against, the defaulter. However, to meet the ends of justice, I order under P.P.R. 16.38(2) that department proceedings be initiated against constable Raghbir Singh No. 880." The Rule in question is as under: - "16.38(2). When investigation of which a complaint establishes a prima -facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow: the matter shall be disposed of departmentally only if the District Magistrate so orders for reasons to be recorded. When it is decided to proceed departmentally, the procedure prescribed in rule 16.24 shall be followed. An officer found guilty on a charge of the nature referred to in this rule shall ordinarily be dismissed."
(3.) The appellate Court held that on a proper interpretation of the rule in question, the normal rule was prosecution of a person and reasons were required to be recorded if person was to be proceeded against departmentally. It was held that since in the impugned order reasons were not recorded the order of holding departmental enquiry was illegal.;