RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER belated compliance of Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules (for short "Rules") would necessarily vitiate departmental proceedings, against a delinquent police officer, is a question of primary importance, which arises in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As is plain, the word "immediate" is the key word of opening employed in Sub -rule (1). This word, in the context in which it has been used, has engaged our earnest attention to discover its true meaning, significance and amplitude towards the interpretation of the said sub -rule. But besides the said question, there have been other questions of secondary importance as well.

(2.) SHORN of all details, the case of the Petitioner Ram Phal was that he had a varied career as an employee in different capacities before he sought and obtained the post of an Assistant Sub -Inspector Police in the State of Haryana on March 31, 1971. While posted at Police Station, Radaur in District Kurukshetra in the year 1975, one Shri Lachhman Singh submitted a complaint against him alleging that the Petitioner had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 550. The complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, the fourth Respondent, on September 8, 1975. He forwarded the complaint to the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, - -vide memo. No. 1965 -P, dated September 24, 1975, copy of which is Annexure P -1 to the petition, after a span of 16 days. Such course was obligatory under Rule 16.38(1) which is appropriate to be quoted at this juncture:

(3.) AS a sequel to the investigation, authorised by the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, one Shri Ved Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, was deputed to conduct a preliminary investigation. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as the finding submitted by him were then sent to the District Magistrate on January 6, 1976 - -vide Annexure P -3 for according necessary permission under Rule 16.38(2) of the Rules, suggesting initiation of departmental proceedings against the Petitioner. On January 15, 1976 - -vide order, Annexure P -4, the District Magistrate, after going through the report of the Inquiry Officer and other relevant papers and keeping in view the facts, opined that it would not be advisable to prosecute the Petitioner in a Court of law. He further opined that to meet the ends of justice, it was necessary to initiate departmental proceedings against the Petitioner and accordingly, exercising his deviatory choice, under Sub -rule (2) of the aforesaid rule ordered launching of departmental proceedings against the Petitioner. Resultantly, a regular inquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was found guilty of the charge of accepting Rs. 550 as bribe. The requisite show cause notice, Annexure P -5, was given to the Petitioner on June 26, 1976 to which he submitted a reply on August 31, 1976, Annexure P -6. On consideration of his reply and other material, an order of dismissal, dated September 30, 1976 (Annexure P -7) was passed by Superintendent of Police, Karnal which was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Ambala Range, on January 9, 1977 (Annexure P -8) and was found not worth interfering with in revision by the Inspector -General of Police by his order, dated April 25, 1977 (Annexure P -9). This is how the matter was brought before us to challenge the entire proceedings culminating in the dismissal of the Petitioner.