LexDELHI ADMINISTRATION versus CHANAN SHAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G DELlll ADMINISTRATION .v. CHANAN SHAH February 12, 1969 653 [S. M, SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.j Puniab Police Rules 1934, r. 16. 38-Sanction of District Magistrate for departmental inquirJ under said rule-inquiry vitiated when require- ment~ of rule not followed. The respondent was recruited as a constable in undivided Punjab in 1934 and m 1946 became an Assistant Sub-Inspector. In 1950 he was posted at Delhi. In 1955 he was confirmed in the above rank by the Senior Superintendent .of Police, Delhi. In 1957 there was an acc~satio!l against him of having received illegal .grat~cation in a ~ase he was mve~tl gating, whe~eupon alter a summary mquuy. the Supermtendent. of Pohc.e (City) Delhi passed an order of censure agamst him. On a review of this order under r. 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 the Deputy Inspec- tor General of Police passed an order cancelling the order of censure and further ordered that the respondent should be dealt with departmentally. The conduct of the departmental mquiry was entrusted to the Supennten- dent of Police Central District, New Delhi who asked the District Magis- trate for the necessary sanction under r. 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rul<S, 1934. On receiving the sanction the J,nquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and found that the allegations against the respondent were subs- tantially true. After a show caUSe notice he passed an order in 1958 dis- missing the respondent from service. An appeal against the order of dis- missal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General and the subsequent revision was dismissed by the Inspector-General. The respondent tnere upon filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the dismissal order. The petition was dismissed by the Single Judge but the Division Bench held that the dismissal order could not be sustained in view of .the fact that the inquiry was made in contravention of Ch. XVI r. 38 of the Punjab Police Rules. The Delhi Administration appealed to this Court. HELD: The provisions of sub-rr. (I) and (2) of r. 38 are attracted in cases of complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, indicating the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. In such a case the superintendent of police is required to bring the complaint to the notice of the District Magistrate who is to decide whether the investigation of the complaint should be made by a selected Magistrate having first class powers or should b.e lef~ to a polic~ officer. If the investigation discloses a prima faci<' case a Judicrnl prosecution should normally follow unless for reasons tG be recorded in writing the District Magistrate directs that the matter should be disposed of departmentally. [657 D-E] · In the present case the complaint received by the Superintendent of Police (City) Delhi indicated the commission by the appellant of a crimi- nal olfonce m "?"!'ection with his official relations was the public. The H complamt fell withm r, 38(1) and ~hould have been dealt with according- ly. Nevertheless there was no investigation of the kind prescribed by r, ~8(1). The District Magistrate did not direct any preliminary investi- gatJOn no! was. any prima fa_cie case against the respondent as a result of such an mvestigalton, established. The District Magistrate was not in- LIOSqp./69-7 - 654 \ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. formed that the Superintendent of Police held an inquiry and passed an order of censure and that his order was set aside by the Deputy Inspector- Geperal. The inquiry held by the Superintendent of Police was not autho- rised by the District Magistrate nor did it receive his approval. The Dis- trict Magistrate gave his sanction without recording any reasons and with- out applying his mind to the requirement of r. 16.38. In the circums- tances the departmental action taken against the respondent was invalid. [657 F; 658 C-Dl State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679, 711, 727-728 and Jagan Nath v. Sr. Supdt. of Police, Ferozepur, A.LR. 1962 Punjab 38, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : ,Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1966. A B Appeal by special leave from !be judgment and order dated C January 23, 1963 of !be Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 68-D of 1961. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, R. N. Sachthey and B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.