I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was working as Mobile Traffic Inspector, Flying Squad, Hissar, in June, 1974, impugns the action of the respondents in awarding him the punishment of stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect as a result of the departmental enquiry held against him on various charges. The order of punishment was passed by the Super intendant of Police on Sept. 2, 1975 (Annexure P. 10) and it was later affirmed with slight modification as to quantum of punishment by the Deputy Inspector General and the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, on appeal and revision.
(2.) The primary challenge to these orders is on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana, has not been complied with and the petitioner has been materially prejudiced by the said non-compliance. The precise argument is that on the basis of the preliminary enquiry held under sub-rule (1) of the said Rules, the District Magistrate concerned had to pass a reasoned order for not prosecuting the petitioner in a judicial Court which otherwise is a the normal rule. To appreciate the argument it is but necessary to notice the relevant part of this Rules:- "16.38. Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by courts procedure regarding:- (1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicate the Commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected magistrate having 1st class powers. (2) When investigation of such a complaint establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow : the matter shall he 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." (Emphasis added). The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated Oct. 23, 1974 (Annexure P. 3) stated to have been passed in terms of sub-rule (2) reads as follows:- ORDER Preliminary Enquiry Into The Charges Levelled Against Shri Sarup Singh, Inspector, Mobile Traffic Staff, Hissar, has been got conducted under Rule 16.38(1) of the' Police Rules by the Superintendent of Police, Hissar. Vide his report dated 8-9-1974, he has proved the following charges against the said official:- 1. Misbehaviour with S/Shri Man Parkash, Surat Singh and Laja Nand ; 2. Demanded bribe from Shri Sher Singh S/o Shri Bhim Singh and on the refusal challaned him ; 3. Demanded illegal gratification from Shri Dharu Ram s/o Hari Singh and on refusal challaned him ; 4. Extracted Rs. 20 from Shri Ramesh Chand s/o Banwari Lai as bribe and his truck was not challaned : 5. Detained Truck No. H.R.R. 1038 of Shri Om Parkash s/o Shri Gaja Nand for 6 hours without any cballan. (2) I have studied all the proofs in the report and also gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer very carefully and I have also reached at the conclusion that the above charges levelled against the accused are proved. Therefore, I, Ram Sahai Verma, Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, exercising the powers under Rule 16.38(2) of the Police Rules, order that the departmental action be taken against the above accused. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani." A bare reading of this order manifestly indicates that the District Magistrate has not recorded any reason whatsoever for deviating from the normal course of launching a prosecution against the petitioner and ordering a departmental enquiry against him. It is thus patent that there has been no compliance of the requirements of sub-rule (2). The District Magistrate who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 to this writ petition has not even cared to file a reply to the same.
(3.) The sole submission of Mr. Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the respondents is that the provisions of sub-rule (2) of this Rule are only directly and there is substantial compliance of the same. So far as the first part of the argument of the learned counsel is concerned, I find the same is totally devoid of any merit in the light of the dictum of a Full Bench of this Court in Nand Nandan Sarup Vs. The District Magistrate, Patiala and others, (1966) 68 P. L. R. 747 , wherein it has been laid down that the provisions of this Rule are mandatory in nature. Otherwise also it is plain from the language of this sub-rule that the same is not merely directory. Had it been so, the Rule would not have insisted upon the recording of reasons by the District Magistrate for not following the normal course of launching a prosecution against a delinquent officer or for deviating from the same in holding a departmental enquiry against him. So far as the second aspect of the argument is concerned, I again find that the same is bereft of any substance. The order of the Deputy Commissioner which has already been reproduced above is a self-contained order and does not in the least give any reasons for deviating from the normal course of launching a prosecution against the petitioner as a result of the preliminary enquiry held against him. The reference to Ram Phal Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1980 (3) S.L.R. 186 by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be irrelevant in the light of the facts of the two cases. In that case what had happened was that the District Magistrate had either agreed to or approved the proposal made by the Superintendent of Police in his memorandum for not launching judicial prosecution against the officer concerned and suggesting the holding of a departmental enquiry only. No such situation exists here. As already pointed out, the impugned order of the the District Magistrate (Annexure P. 3) is a self-contained order. It has not been passed in the context of any other note or proposal by any other authority. The District Magistrate makes a reference to the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner under sub-rule (1), finds the charges to have been prima facie established and then suddenly in paragraph 2 of the order, directs the initiation of a departmental enquiry against him. No reason whatsoever as required by sub-rule (2) for deviating from the normal course of prosecution has been recorded.;