- (1.) Bhajan Singh, petitioner after doing some survice in the Army, was deputed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Punjab. Having been confirmed in that post and approved for promotion, he was posted as Sub Inspector Police in Rohtak district. He was sent on deputation in October, 1964, as Inspector in charge, Excise Staff, Rohtak. It was alleged against him that he was found taking liquor with some members of the Public in the Rest House at Chuchakwas, in district Rohtak, while on deputation in the excise staff. Rohtak being a dry district this amounted to an offence. An enquiry into the said allegation was held against him, which resulted in the passing of order, dated May 15, 1965, for the petitioner's reversion to his substantive post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The petitioner submitted an appeal against that order to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala RAnge. In the meantime, Shri Bahal Singh, Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 1, is alleged to have mala fide raked up various other enquiries against the petitioner. During the pendency of the enquiry into the Chuchakwas incident, a warning was administered to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, in his confidential report for the period October 5, 1964 to March 31, 1965. In the course of the remarks by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak dealing generally with the conduct of the petitioner, following observations were made. "He (the petitioner) was detected by Sub Inspector Jang Bahadur taking liquor with the Sarpanch of village Jheanzgarh in the Rest House. His conduct was reported to me in writing by the Sub Inspector. D.S.P./H. is making his departmental enquiry. He is using dilatory tacties to prolong the enquiry and making ill-founded allegations against the Sub Inspector who caught him red handed while drinking in the Rest House.' (Annexure 'H'). Consequently a warning, dated April 17, 1965 (Annexure 'C') was administered to the petitioner in the following words :- "I have noticed that Sub Inspector Bhajan Singh who was detected by Sub Inspector Jang Bahadur (S.H.O. Beri) taking liquor in the company of a public man in the Rest House Chuchakwas, is playing mischief and is inspiring complaints against the said S.H.O. Sub Inspector Bhajan Singh is already being dealt with on the complaint of Sub Inspector Jang Bahadur. He is hereby warned to keep himself straight. If he continues to play mischief and concoct cow and bull stories, he will be charged departmentally. One copy of this warning duly noted by Sub Inspector Bhajan Singh should be placed on his Fauzi Misal." It was at that stage that the petitioner came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on June 14, 1965, for directing the Superintendent of Police to withdraw his order and notices regarding the departmental enquiries on the various charges and to quash all these proceedings which were alleged to be illegal, unjust and mala fide.
(2.) After the admission of the writ petition, the appeal of the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police against the punishment imposed on him by respondent No. 1, was accepted by order, dated July, 9, 1965 (Annexure 'I'). The operative part of the appellate order is in the following words :- "It has been repeatedly emphasised that the provisions of police Rule 16.38(i) and 16.38(ii) in cases where information reaching the Superintendent of Police discloses the commission by an enrolled police office of a criminal offence during the course of his official relations with the public are lythe entire proceedings. In these circumstances, I have no option but to quash the order of punishment passed by Superintendent of Police Rohtak reducing the appellant from the Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector. He is re-instated to the rank of Sub Inspector from the date of reduction. he is transferred to Simla district. Superintendent Police Simla will in compliance with the provisions of police Rule 16.38 (i) bring the allegations against the appellant to the notice of the District Magistrate, Rohtak and further actions shall be taken in the light of directions given by District Magistrate,Rohtak." The petitioner having got partial relief from the appellate authority thought himself aggrieved by the direction given for a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in the appellate order. he, therefore, filed with the leave of the Court, an amended writ petition, dated August 16, 1965, mentioning the subsequent appellate order therein. The written-statement on behalf of the respondents was filed by Shri Bahal Singh, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on December 4, 1965, wherein it was averred that the petitioner had still to face the enquiry in Simla district on the charge of taking liquor in the Rest House at Chuchakaws on account of the remand of the case by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Ambala Range on the above mentioned technical ground. The petitioner thereupon filed C.M. 4699/1965, dated 22nd of December, 1965, for leave to file a further affidavit in reply to the written statement. The permission was granted by P.D. Sharma, J., on December 24, 1965. In the same application, the petitioner had also prayed for certain original records being produced. That prayer was also granted by the Court subject to just exceptions. In paragraph 11 of the further affidavit (replication) filed by the petitioner, it was averred inter alia that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police having held that without the sanction of the District Magistrate under enquiry can be held unless the District Magistrate for reasons to be recorded, grants sanction according to law, and that according to the petitioner, the requisite sanction cannot now be granted in view of the law settled in that respect by this Court recently.
(3.) Mr. H.S. Gujral, the learned counsel for the petitioner has first tried to press into service, the allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not consider it necessary to go into the disputed allegations. The departmental authorities may, if and when called upon to do so in appropriate proceedings, look into these allegations if it becomes necessary to do so.;