9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to dismissal order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on violation of departmental enquiry procedure under Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules. Analysis: The petitioner, a former Head Constable, sought to quash his dismissal order through Article 226 jurisdiction, alleging procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry process. The petitioner joined service in 1933 and was dismissed in 1960 for allegedly accepting a bribe during an arrest. The Superintendent of Police initiated proceedings against the petitioner based on a report, seeking the District Magistrate's sanction for a departmental enquiry under Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Police's actions contravened Rule 16.38(1) by suggesting a departmental enquiry without the District Magistrate's decision. The rule mandates immediate reporting to the District Magistrate for determining the investigation's course by either a Police officer or a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the Superintendent of Police overstepped by recommending a departmental enquiry, a decision reserved for the District Magistrate. The court referenced previous judgments to support the petitioner's claim. In Nand Singh v. Superintendent of Police, it was held that the District Magistrate must provide reasons for initiating a departmental enquiry under Rule 16.38(2), emphasizing the District Magistrate's exclusive authority in such matters. Similarly, in Gobind Singh v. D.I.G. of Police, it was ruled that the Superintendent of Police's suggestion for departmental proceedings, followed by the District Magistrate's sanction without reasons, violated Rule 16.38(2) of Punjab Police Rules. The court found that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was initiated improperly, breaching Rule 16.38 in two significant aspects: the Superintendent of Police's unauthorized suggestion and the District Magistrate's acceptance without proper justification. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the dismissal order and awarding costs to the petitioner due to procedural violations. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules in departmental enquiries, emphasizing the District Magistrate's pivotal role in deciding the course of action. The court's decision underscored the need for proper authorization and justification in initiating disciplinary proceedings against police officers to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to statutory rules.
|
