STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana has approached this Court challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the departmental enquiry held against SI Satya Narain - respondent was without obtaining prior permission from the District Magistrate as per the requirement of mandatory Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity 'the Rules'). Both the Courts have held that in the ex -parte departmental proceedings the case property of five bottles of illicit liquor alleged to have been recovered from one Chandgi Ram son of Inder Singh, which constituted the basis for allegation of hushing up the case regarding recovery, was not produced and therefore in the absence of production of the case property the allegations levelled against the respondent were found to be without any evidence. The State of Haryana has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming that following two substantial questions of law would arise in the present appeal:

(2.) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the present case the department enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff/ respondent by following the principle of natural justice?

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in cases where preliminary inquiry or investigation into a complaint on the allegation of commission of criminal offence establishes, a prima facie case against an enrolled police officer, like the petitioner, then normally criminal prosecution is to follow. However, where the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally then 'concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained'. The aforesaid rule has been in force in both the states of Punjab and Haryana but the respondent State of Haryana incorporated an amendment on 22.7.1978. However, the amendment has not changed the legal position and the concurrence of the District Magistrate has to be regarded as mandatory particularly when the rule itself uses the expression 'concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained'.