CONSTABLE SURINDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Karnal, in an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karnal, whereby his suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect and that he shall not be paid more than suspension allowance for the suspension period w.e.f. 13.05.1991 to 24.04.1993 was dismissed. The plaintiff -appellant has claimed the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE aforesaid questions of law raised from the fact that an FIR No. 267 dated 12.05.1991 for the offences under Sections 354, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was registered at Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was charge sheeted on the allegations on which the FIR was lodged vide charge -sheet dated 19.08.1991 that while posted as Escort Guard of the Director General of Police, Haryana and while on tour, the appellant was said to have caught hold of two girls, who were returning back to their home with their friends, with intention to outrage their modesty and asked them to accompany him to the cinema hall. In pursuance to the charge -sheet, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer had given his report on 07.04.1992 holding the appellant guilty of misconduct. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing stoppage of six annual increments. The notice could not be served as he was reported to be absent from duty. Another show cause notice was issued to him proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 27.04.1993 called upon to explain his conduct. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 25.05.1993. It is the said order and the order passed in appeal, which were challenged by the plaintiff -appellant in a civil suit before the Court.

(3.) A perusal of the above shows that Rule 16.38 contemplates that if after a preliminary enquiry or investigation, if an enrolled police officer is prima facie established to be involved in a criminal offence, a judicial prosecution was normally follow but wherever, the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained.