Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules led to the dismissal being declared bad and the plaintiff being reinstated with consequential benefits.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. Defendants,State of Haryana and others, are in appeal. A suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff challenging order dated February 5,1999 dismissing the plaintiff from service. The facts, which emerge from the record, show that on January 20,1997,plaintiff was found in drunken condition and misbehaving in public. A criminal case under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and under section 510 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. Simultaneously, a regular departmental inquiry was also conducted.

2. The plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed from service vide the aforesaid order. Both the two Courts below have found it as a fact that the mandatory provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") had not been followed inasmuch as the prior concurrence of the District Magistrate had not been obtained before initiating the departmental proceedings. Consequently, the order of dismissal passed against the plaintiff was declared bad by the learned trial court. The plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service. However, back wages were declined to him.

3. Two separate appeals were filed before the learned first appellate court. Plaintiff filed an appeal claiming back wages. The defendants filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence available on the record and held that the mandatory provisions of rule 16.38 of the Rules had not been complied with. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. However, the plaintiff was held entitled to all consequential benefits on account of his reinstatement.

4. In view of the law laid down by the HON BLE Supreme Court of india in the case of State of Punjab V. Raj Kumar AIR 1988 S. C.805, it is apparent that the provision of Rule 16.38 of the Rules are mandatory and no departmental enquiry could have been initiated against the plaintiff without proper concurrence of the District Magistrate in a situation when for the same incident the plaintiff was also involved in a criminal case. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has since been acquitted of the criminal charges against him.

5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.