Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Karnal, in an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karnal, whereby his suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect and that he shall not be paid more than suspension allowance for the suspension period w.e.f. 13.05.1991 to 24.04.1993 was dismissed. The plaintiff -appellant has claimed the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the concurrence of the District Magistrate as required under Haryana Police Rules 16.38(1) & (2) is mandatory before initiating departmental action if a police officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public? ii) Whether the case of appellant is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Kishan : AIR 1971 SC 1403? iii) Whether great injustice has been done with the appellant?
(2.) THE aforesaid questions of law raised from the fact that an FIR No. 267 dated 12.05.1991 for the offences under Sections 354, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was registered at Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was charge sheeted on the allegations on which the FIR was lodged vide charge -sheet dated 19.08.1991 that while posted as Escort Guard of the Director General of Police, Haryana and while on tour, the appellant was said to have caught hold of two girls, who were returning back to their home with their friends, with intention to outrage their modesty and asked them to accompany him to the cinema hall. In pursuance to the charge -sheet, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer had given his report on 07.04.1992 holding the appellant guilty of misconduct. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing stoppage of six annual increments. The notice could not be served as he was reported to be absent from duty. Another show cause notice was issued to him proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 27.04.1993 called upon to explain his conduct. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 25.05.1993. It is the said order and the order passed in appeal, which were challenged by the plaintiff -appellant in a civil suit before the Court. In the present appeal, the argument raised is that in terms of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana, the concurrence of the District Magistrate was required before initiating departmental action if a police officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. The relevant Rule 16.38 reads as under: - - "16.38. Criminal offices by police officers and strictures by courts - Procedure regarding. - -(1) Where a preliminary enquiry or investigation into a complaint alleging the commission by an enrolled police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public, establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow. Where, however, the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained, XXX XXX"
(3.) A perusal of the above shows that Rule 16.38 contemplates that if after a preliminary enquiry or investigation, if an enrolled police officer is prima facie established to be involved in a criminal offence, a judicial prosecution was normally follow but wherever, the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained.;