The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, requiring prior concurrence of the District Magistrate before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a police officer, are mandatory and not directory.

ORDER :

Petitioner namely, Sh. Sucha Singh joined the services of the respondent Police Department as Constable in the year, 1986. Subsequently, he came to be promoted as Head Constable and thereafter ASI. While petitioner was posted as SHO, police Station, Rajgarh, FIR bearing No.102/2013, dated 2.12.2013 came to be registered against him at the behest of person namely, Sh. Het Ram, who alleged that the petitioner was hand in glove with the accused party and for cancellation of FIR, accused party offered him an I-20 car. He also alleged that petitioner demanded sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. Taking cognizance of aforesaid complaint and registration of FIR, Disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings. Inquiry officer appointed by the authority, issued summary of allegations against the petitioner and started disciplinary proceedings. Inquiry officer submitted inquiry report to the competent authority on 21.5.2015 (Annexure A-2), stating therein that all the charges framed against the petitioner stands proved. Petitioner filed detailed objections to the inquiry report (Annexure A-3), however, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.2.2015, proposing penalty of forfeiture of five years approved service with permanent effect. Though, petitioner filed detailed reply to the same, but the competent authority rejected the same and imposed penalty of forfeiture of five years approved service with permanent effect (Annexures A-4 & A-5). Against aforesaid order of punishment, petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority (Annexure A-6), but same was also rejected by the competent authority. Being aggrieved with the rejection of appeal, petitioner filed revision petition before the competent authority, however same was also rejected vide order dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure A-7). In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application 6039 of 2016, which now on account of abolishment of erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and stands re-registered as CWPOA No.634 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs:-

“1. That charge sheet dated 6.1.2015 (Annexure A-1), enquiry report (Annexure A-2), show cause notice dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure A-4), penalty order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure P-5) and order rejecting the appeal dated 23.3.2016 (Annexure A-7) may very kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant and arrears may be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum without any further delay.

2. That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for all consequential benefits from the date when the same were released in favour of juniors to the applicant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that entire enquiry proceedings stands vitiated on account of non-compliance of Clause 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which is applicable to the Himachal Pradesh Police. She submitted that as per aforesaid provisions of law, Disciplinary authority after lodging FIR, if any, against delinquent officer, where a preliminary enquiry or investigation into a complaint alleging the commission by an enrolled police officer is received or same establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall be initiated but where competent authority proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of District Magistrate is necessary. Learned Senior Counsel while making this court to peruse the record submitted that no concurrence, if any, ever came to be taken from the District Magistrate before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and as such, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stands vitiated.

3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fai