DAULAT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The object and the meaning of rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter called the Rules) have to be considered in deciding this second appeal. The plaintiff appellant was an officiating Sub Inspector of Police in the Delhi Police Force.A departmental enquiry was held against him under rule 16.24 on a charge-sheet dated 31-10 1957 for having raided the premises of the alleged gamblers without any legal permission from any competent authority and for taking possession of Rs. 150.00 from the alleged gamblers but failing to account for the same. He was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and by the impugned order dated 20-2-1958 he was reduced to the rank of a Head Constable by way of punishment.

(2.) The plaintiff challenged the legality of this punishment by way of a suit on various grounds but his suit was dismissed by the trial Court and his first appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. In this second appeal, his learned counsel Shri G S. Vohra has confined his argument against the legality of the punishment only to one ground, namely, that the departmental enquiry resulting in the punishment had been taken against the plaintiff appellant in violation of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 16.38 which run as below:

(3.) It is urged by Shri Vohra that the charge against the plaintiff disclosed the commission of a criminal offence (of criminal breach of trust) in connection with his official relations with the public within the meaning of rule 16 38(1). As departmental enquiry was taken against the plaintiff appellant without prior recourse to the procedure laid down in rule 16.38, the enquiry was ultra vires the said rule and the punishment imposed thereafter was also illegal and unsustainable. Shri Deepak Chaudhry, learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the learned lower Courts that rule 16.38 was not attracted to this case inasmuch as no complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police against the plaintiff appellant and the departmental action taken against the plaintiff was not launched on receipt of any such complaint. It was not necessary, therefore to comply with rule 16.38 before the departmental action. The punishment imposed on the plaintiff appellant was, therefore, legal.