Walaiti Ram vs The State of Punjab and Others

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—The petitioner, Walaiti Ram, who was at one time Head Constable, has moved this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of his dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh District, and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and in revision by the Inspector-General of Police.

The petitioner joined service as a constable in the erstwhile State of Patiala in 1933 and was at the relevant time in 1960 posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Dadri. While he was on patrol duty on the night between 7th and 8th of October, 1960, the petitioner is said to have arrested Hardeva and Mange Ram u/s 55/109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who were subsequently released on bail and eventually discharged by the Court in a prosecution launched against them. The petitioner is stated to have accepted a bribe of Rs. 25/- from Lambardar Bhagat Ram on behalf of Hardeva and Mange Ram.

The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on the report which was made by the Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh District, on 6th of February, 1961, in a memorandum which he addressed to the District Magistrate, Narnaul. As the decision of the case turns on the construction which is to be placed on this report, the same is reproduced below:

A regular departmental enquiry into the alleged misconduct of Head constable Walaiti Ram of District Mohindergarh is required to be initiated under Police rules. Since the alleged misconduct of the Head Constable in obtaining a sum of Rs. 25/- as illegal gratification from one Bhagat Ram during the investigation of the case u/s 109/55, Criminal Procedure Code,.against Mange Ram etc., P.S. Dadri is connected with the official discharge of the duties of the Head Constable, no departmental enquiry can be held against the said Head Constable without obtaining your sanction in this behalf. It is, therefore, requested that as contemplated under Punjab Police Rule 16.38, necessary sanction for initiating departmental enquiry against the said Head Constable may please be accorded.

In reply to this memorandum of the Superintendent of Police the following reply on behalf of the District Magistrate, Narnaul, was sent on 14th of March, 1961:

Reference your memo No. 521/C, dated 6th February, 1961, on the above subject.

It is to intimate to you that the District Magistrate has very kindly accorded sanction for initiating a departmental enquiry against Shri Walaiti Ram for his alleged acceptance of bribe in discharge of his official duties under Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules as desired by you. Action taken by you may please be communicated to this office.

It is submitted by Mr. Agnihotri on behalf of the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Superintendent of Police both in letter and spirit is in contravention of clause (1) of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume II. What is required under Rule 16.38(1) of the aforesaid Rules is this-

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.

According to plain intention of this rule the District Magistrate is to decide for himself - and this is a very important matter to take into consideration whether the enquiry has to be done by a Magistrate or by a Police officer. The enquiry by a Police officer may not be desirable in many cases and it is not for the Superintendent of Police himself to suggest that a departmental enquiry should be launched. All that the Superintendent of Police is enjoined to do is to submit his report to the District Magistrate who alone is to decide what should be done. It is manifest that the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police of 6th of February, 1961 envisages a decision to launch a departmental enquiry, which is a matter only for the District Magistrate to determine. This conclusion is supported by two recent Single Bench decisions of this Court. Harbans Singh, J. in Nand Singh v. Superintendent of Police 1964 Curr. L.J. (Pb.) 150, was dealing with a similar matter in which the Superintendent of Police after making accusations against a Police officer had suggested a departmental enquiry and the District Magistrate had merely noted the word ''allowed'' on that memorandum. It was held that the mandatory requirements of rule 16.38(1) had been violated. The District Magistrate himself has to give reasons for holding a departmental enquiry under rule 16.38(2), and in this case the Superintendent of Police has arrogated to himself the task which under the statutory rule has been assigned to the District Magistrate. The other ruling is of Pandit, J. in Gobind Singh v. D.I.G. of Police

1964 Curr. L.J. (P&H.) 150, in which it was held that "the report of the Superintendent of Police suggested that departmental proceedings be held against the petitioner and the order of the District Magistrate accorded the necessary sanction without giving reasons contravened the provisions of Rule 16.38(2) of the Punjab Police Rules." It may be added that under Rule 16.38(2) what is required is that "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 for reasons to be recorded." In the instant case Rule 16.38 has been breached in two essential aspects. In the first place the Superintendent of Police has himself made a suggestion of a departmental enquiry, and secondly the District Magistrate has conveyed his acceptance of the suggestion through some one else without assigning his own reasons for this course of action. It is not necessary to go into the other points arising in this petition, which must be allowed and the order of dismissal set aside. As the enquiry had been initiated in violation of the elementary rules of procedure, I make an order that the petitioner will get the costs of this petition.