NAUT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Petitioner was selected and appointed as A.S.I. OB 1.4 54 and confirmed on 1-4-57. On 27-12-57 he was appointed as S.I in a substantive vacancy against a permanent post. In August. 61, one Sewa Ram of Rajendra Market complained to petitioner who was in charge of police post at Tis Hazari about theft of Rs. 1,200.00 from his shop. On being asked to give details he promised to bring the same. Sewa Ram later on declined to lodge the complaint on the plea that the Market Panchayat had got him his stolen money from Godar Singh and Mohan. Petitioner took Sewa Ram and others to Police Station, Sabzi Mandi as Tis Hazari post was under that station. The S.H.O. on hearing Sewa Ram did not feel the necessity of registering the complaint. Godar Singh then complained that petitioner had harassed him by detention for a day to make him pay Sewa Ram. The Anti-Corruption branch of the police investigated this. An year later, order of District Magistrate was sought under Rule 16 38 of the Police Rules. By order of 10-4-63, forfeiture of one year's service was ordered. On 11-4-63, petitioner was relieved for joining Military Academy as Emergency Commissioned Officer. On 25-5-63, the DI.G., M.P. Singh issued a notice to him asking him to show cause why penalty should not be enhanced. The Academy suggested that he may be asked to show cause after completion of training. On 6-1-64 petitioner replied that without the documents and the papers, he could not give adequate reply. His reversion was ordered on 12-5-64 At the alleged insistence of D.I.G. the Army released petitioner on 25-11-65. Petitioner took medical leave upto 6-2-67 and resigned on 7-2-67. He was taken back in service by the new I.G. and was shown as A.S.I, and was assured that he would soon be made S.I. After lot of representation he was confirmed as S.I. on 15-8-70. S.P. then recommended him for being brought on the promotion list 'F'. The D.I.G. rejected it on the ground that he had not completed 6 years as S.I. After his appeal was rejected by the I.G and the representation by the Lt. Governor, he filed Writ claiming that as rules provided a maximum period of probation of 2 years he should be deemed as a confirmed S.I. from 27-12-59 and that the departmental enquiry was illegal and void. [Para 8 onwards, judgement is :-

(2.) It was held by a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Hand Nandan Sarup V. The District Magistrate Patiala and others (1966 P.L.R. 747) that failure of the District Magistrate to record reasons for allowing a complaint against a police officer to be proceeded with departmentally instead of by Judicial process renders such order illegal because sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.38 is mandatory. Though in Delhi Administration V. Chanan Shah (1949 S.L.R. 217) the question whether Rule 16.38 concerning recording of reasons was mandatory or not was left open, reference was made to the previous decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1961 2 S.C.R. 679) which held that a similar U.P. Police Regulation was mandatory. In a later decision in Union of India v. Ram Kishan (1972 S.L.R 11) Sikri C.J. (as he then was) following Delhi Administration v. Chanan Shah upheld the quashing of the dismissal of a police officer without complying with Rule 16.38. Rule is......

(3.) It is clear, on a mere reading of the same, that there is a duty to record reasons laid on the District Magistrate for departing from the usual rule of a police officer, who is complained against, having to go before a court when a prime facie case existsThis is obviously meant for the protection of the concerned police officers ; in other words, only when valid reasons exist for the investigation of the complaint being made departmentally and such reasons are also recorded by the District Magistrate in his order could such a course be adopted.