J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Bhoja Ram is an ex-constable employed in the Police Department, Haryana, and was dismissed from service with effect from 28th Jan., 1977. His appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, H.A.P., Madhuban, Karnal, was dismissed on 11th May, 1977. He also went up in revision before the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 10th May, 1978. He has challenged all these orders in the present writ petition.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of this case are, that on the intervening night between 31-10-1975/1-11-1975, the petitioner alongwith Constable No. 1/737 Shri Bhagwan, conducted an unauthorised checking on the Ambala Jagadhari road near Dusarka Chowk, Police Post Barara. Police Station Mulana, by posing themselves to be Police Traffic Officials. Shri Bhagwan was in uniform, while the petitioner was in plain clothes. During the course of this checking they illegally extorted money from certain truck drivers. Later on, both of them went to Barara early in the morning, where the drivers identified them and suspected them to be importers. They tried to flee away, but the drivers followed and succeeded in catching hold of them. At that time both of them were in plain clothes. They were taken to Police Post, Barara and a complaint was lodged against them. The police conducted the search of the defaulters which led to the recovery of currency notes worth Rs. 125 from the petitioner and Rs. 241 from his co-defaulter and a set of the Police uniforms, which were seized. Since the complaint indicated the commission by a Police Officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public, the matter was referred to the District Magistrate, Ambala, under rule 16.38(1) and (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On this departmental enquiry against the petitioner was ordered which was completed by Shri Chander Bhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1st Bn. H. A P, Ambala City, who gave his findings on 31st Dec., 1976 (Annexure P-l with the petition), holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. After observing all the necessary formalities provided under the Rules, Commandant, 1st Bn. H.A.P., Ambala City, dismissed the petitioner from service vide his order dated 28th Jan., 1977 (Annexure P 2 with the petition). The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal, which was finally heard and decided by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, vide his order dated 11th May, 1977. All the contentions raised before him were dealt with and ultimately, he came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the petitioner was fully proved beyond any doubt and the enquiry did not suffer from any technical or procedural defect. The punishment awarded was commensurate with the gravest misconduct of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the order, a revision was taken before the Inspector General of Police, Haryana. After hearing the petitioner, he also dismissed the same and confirmed the findings of the officers below.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kundu, vehemently argued in the first instance that rule 16.38 of the Rules was not attracted in the present case, and. therefore, the whole proceedings, according to him, are vitiated . According to him the petitioner could only be prosecuted criminally in a Court of law and no action could be taken under the said rule, as the offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be in connection with his official relations with the public, as contemplated in the said rule. In order to substantiate his contention, he further submitted that the petitioner was admittedly in plain clothes at the time of committing the offence and was also on leave. Besides he was an employee of the Haryana Armed Police and not a member of the Traffic Police. In our view, the argument is wholly misconceived. Rule 16.38, before the amendment, as applicable in the year 1976, provided:- "(1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates 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 be disposed of departmentally only if the District Magistrate so orders of for reasons to be recorded. An Officer found guilty on a charge of the nature referred to in this rule shall ordinarily be dismissed. (3) ....................... (4) ..................... Sec. 22 of the Police Act, 1861, provides that every Police Officer shall, for all purposes in this Act contained, be considered to be always on duty, and may at any time be employed as Police Officer in any part of the general police district Thus, it is immaterial whether the petitioner was on leave on that day or not, since he would always be considered to be on duty under the Act. Similarly, it was also immaterial that the petitioner was not in uniform at that particular time. In this connection the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Union of India Vs. Ram Kishan, 1972 S L.R. 11, are quite relevant, which are as under : "It was contended before us that the first part of the rule 16.38 does not apply because the plaintiff went to the scene of occurrence without any uniform and that the question of commission of a criminal offence by a Police Officer in connection with his official relations with the public can only arise if he commits the offence when he is in uniform. It was further urged that before and offence can be said to have been committed by a Police Officer it must be not in exercise of purported authority but real authority. We are unable to see any force in these contentions. On the facts of this case it is quite clear that the plaintiff was purporting exercise authority of a Police Officer and even if he was in plain clothes it does not mean that he was not purporting to act as a Police Officer." Moreover, rule 16.38 provides that immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any such complaint which indicates the commission by a Police Officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public and he will decide whether the investigation of the case should be conducted by a Police Officer, or made over to a selected Magistrate having 1st Class powers. So, it cannot be believed nor it has been suggested that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner on this account Even if he could be prosecuted in a Court of law, there was no bar to proceed against him departmentally.;