- (1.) The petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Assistant Sub-Inspector Nand Singh challenging the legality of departmental enquiry directed against him on charges of corruption.
(2.) Leaving out the detailed background given by the petitioner showing that the Superintendent of Police of his district was not well disposed towards him, the relevant facts, as alleged in the petition, are that in 1961, when he was attached to the C.I.A. Staff at Barnala, he registered a case under Section 19 of the Arms Act for possession of a c-untry made pistol against one Shamsher Singh. In the course of the investigation of that case, a complaint was made to S. Harjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police that the petitioner had accepted an illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 300/- from Shamsher Singh promising not to challan him but to substitute some other accused in his place. S. Harjit Singh, after investigation in that case, directed the cancellation of the challan against the aforesaid Shamsher Singh and made a complaint on the basis of which First Information Report No. 169 was registered on 5th of November, 1961, at Barnala under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner. On 24th of November, 1961. No proceedings took place against him, either departmentally or in Court, till 1963. The petitioner's case is that as a result of the investigation in the corruption case against him, a challan was actually sent on 28th of January, 1963. The petitioner's case is that as a result of the investigation in the corruption case against him, a challan was actually sent on 28th of January, 1963 but the same was recalled at the instance of the Superintendent of Police who directed that the matter should first of all be enquired into departmentally and after the departmental enquiry was over, criminal proceedings may be started against him. The Superintendent of Police, therefore, sent a memorandum recommending this course of action to the Deputy Commissioner who gave sanction without independently applying his mind to the facts of the case and exercising his discretion which he was bound to do under the relevant police rules. The enquiry was entrusted to a Deputy Superintendent of Police who made a report on the basis of which a notice was given to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner has filed this petition, inter alia, challenging the legality of the enquiry.
(3.) The main two contentions of behalf of the petitioner are as follows :- (i) That under sub-rule (1) of rule 16.38 whenever any complaint is received by a Superintendent of Police against a Police official in relation to his conduct with the public, the matter has to be brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner to decide "whether investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer or made over to a selected Magistrate having first class powers" and that in the present case no such action was taken; (ii) that under sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid rule when the result o the investigation of such a complaint establishes a prima facie case a judicial prosecution is normally to follow and the matter can be disposed of departmentally only "if the District Magistrate so orders for reasons to be recorded" and that this provision was also not complied with and consequently the departmental enquiry directed against the petitioner is null and void.;