Departmental inquiries against police officers can proceed without prior District Magistrate approval when specific charges of corruption are involved, even during ongoing criminal trials.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, above noted writ petitions are hereby adjudicated as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-15246-2022.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent not to proceed with the departmental inquiry initiated against him during the pendency of criminal trial in FIR No. 13 dated 26.10.2021 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at P.S. SVB, District Gurugram. He is further seeking quashing of letter/order dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-3).

3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as constable on 27.10.2000. He was promoted as Head Constable in 2008. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 2011 and Sub Inspector (ORP) in 2013. An FIR No.349 dated 23.11.2017 under Sections 420, 166, 167, 384, 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 10, 12, 1, 13(1)D, 13(1) E, 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘PC Act’) at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram came to be registered against employees of Regional Transport Authority, Gurugram. The Investigating officer after completing investigation filed its report on 06.01.2019 against 23 persons. During further investigation, accused Balbir Singh was arrested and challan was presented against him 21.11.2020. The Trial Court framed charges on 08.03.2021.

4. The respondent registered FIR No.13 dated 26.10.2021 under Section 7 of PC Act against the petitioner at P.S. SVB, Gurugram on the basis of statement of Balbir Singh who during investigation deposed that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through petitioner to the Investigating Officer of FIR No.349 dated 23.11.2017. The respondent on the basis of aforesaid FIR initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner. An Inquiry Officer has been appointed to hold regular departmental inquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that respondent has initiated departmental inquiry without seeking approval of District Magistrate in terms of Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as made applicable to the State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’). As per said Rule, departmental proceedings cannot be initiated without concurrence of District Magistrate. The respondent as per its convenience and choice is seeking concurrence in few cases and proceeding in rest without concurrence. Approval is mandatory in nature, thus, proceedings arising out of charge sheet issued without prior approval of District Magistrate are null and void in the eye of law. Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ranbir Singh , Civil Appeal No.5822 of 2008 has clearly held that approval under Rule 16.38 is mandatory in nature. Similar view has been expressed by Himachal Pradesh High Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others , 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3353.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that this Court in CWP-24413-2012 titled as Constable Pale Ram vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 14.12.2012; CWP-8085-2012 titled as Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 23.04.2014 and EHC Dhan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others , 2019 (1) PLR 81 has held that prior approval of District Magistrate qua departmental proceedings is not necessary where FIR has been registered. Once criminal proceedings are initiated, the departmental proceedings may be initiated without prior approval of District Magistrate.

7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. In all the petitions, the police after completing investigation has already filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The trial is going on and in remaining cases charges stand framed.

9. The entire dispute revolves around reading of Rule 16.38 of PPR and the same is