The main legal point established is that the sanction of the District Magistrate is necessary when departmental action alone is proposed in the absence of judicial prosecution, as per Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules,1934.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.2.2017, Annexure P-2, by which his services have been suspended and a regular departmental enquiry has been initiated against him for misconduct, the alleged misconduct being the re-registration of fake arms licences issued from other States in the record of the Arms Licence Branch, while he was posted as the Incharge of the said branch in the year 2015-16.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed to Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules,1934, (as applicable to the State of Haryana), which reads as follows:-

“16.38 Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by courts-Procedure regarding.- (1) Where a preliminary enquiry or investigation into a complaint alleging the commission by an enrolled police officer of a criminal office in connection with his official relations with the public, establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow. Where however, the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained.

(2) Orders have been issued by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court making it obligatory on all civil and criminal courts, whenever they make strictures on the personal character or professional conduct of a police officer, to send a copy of the judgment to the executive authorities. In the case of the High Court itself the copies will be forwarded to the State Government. In the case of all other Courts (including Courts of Sessions), the copies will be sent by the Judges and Magistrates concerned to the District Magistrates.

(3) In cases in which strictures are passed on the conduct of the police by a Sessions Court or by a Magistrate's Court and no specific recommendation is made by the Court making such strictures that an enquiry should be made, the District Magistrate will decide whether an investigation into the matter is necessary, and if so, whether it shall be conducted by police officer or by a selected Executive Magistrate. After an investigation or enquiry, the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) shall be followed. In cases in which the Court passing strictures on the conduct of the police suggests that an enquiry should be made, the District Magistrate will comply with such request.

When strictures on the conduct of the police are made by the High Court and communicated to the State Government direct in accordance with sub-rule (2) above, the instructions of Government as to the action to be taken by the local authorities will be communicated to them through the ordinary channels. In cases in which the High Court suggests that an enquiry should be made, that State Government will give orders accordingly.

(4) Rules 24.14 and 24.15 provide for reports of all serious charges against the police being communicated to the State Government by a special report. In cases where such serious charges arise from strictures passed by criminal Courts, the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate should communicate, either in the report itself or in a covering letter, the procedure which they propose to adopt and any information or notes in connection with the case which they consider should be brought to the notice of Government. Rule 24.15 provides the opportunity for Deputy Inspectors-General and Commissioners similarly to communicate their comments to the State Government.”

3. Thus, a perusal of Rule 16.38(1) shows that where, after a preliminary enquiry or investigation into a complaint against an enrolled police officer a criminal offence is made out, a judicial prosecution would normally follow, but where the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate for such proceedings is necessary.

4. In the present case, an FIR has been registered, though with the petitioners' name not stated to be figuring therein; but during the