Rule 16.38 is inapplicable where police misconduct is unrelated to official relations with the public.

On 2 June 2009, the petitioner, a police constable posted in the Traffic Police at Kala Amb, allegedly abused, misbehaved with, obstructed, and threatened ASI Ram Nath, In-charge of Police Post Kachha Tank, Nahan, while the ASI was performing official duties.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 143, 186 and 506 IPC. The petitioner was suspended and departmental charges were framed against him on substantially similar allegations.

Although the petitioner sought stay of the departmental enquiry on the ground that a criminal case was pending, the request was rejected. The enquiry proceeded, the charges were found proved, and the petitioner was supplied with the enquiry report along with a show-cause notice proposing dismissal.

After considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the lesser penalty of forfeiture of five years’ approved service with cumulative effect, rather than dismissal, by order dated 31 December 2009.

His statutory appeal and revision were dismissed.

Whether the petitioner was denied procedural fairness by non-supply of the enquiry report before imposition of the penalty.

Whether Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules barred or regulated the departmental enquiry in view of the pending criminal case arising from the same incident.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority had pre-determined the punishment by proposing dismissal in the show-cause notice.

Whether the findings of guilt or the penalty of forfeiture of five years’ service warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, which requires the prescribed procedure where a complaint indicates that a police officer has committed a criminal offence “in connection with his official relations with the public”; it does not impose a general prohibition on departmental proceedings in every case involving a criminal prosecution.

The Court relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, holding that criminal and departmental proceedings may ordinarily proceed simultaneously, unless the criminal charge is grave and involves complicated questions of fact and law.

It further applied the clean-hands doctrine governing discretionary relief under Article 226, as stated in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha: suppression or misrepresentation of material facts may justify dismissal of a writ petition without examination of the merits.

Relying on Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, the Court held that a proposed punishment in a show-cause notice does not, by itself, establish that the disciplinary authority has finally pre-determined the penalty.

Under State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, judicial review of disciplinary action is limited to examining jurisdiction, adherence to prescribed procedure and natural justice, and the existence of some evidence; the writ court cannot reappreciate the adequacy or reliability of evidence or act as an appellate forum on facts.

The Court found that the petitioner’s assertion that the enquiry report had not been supplied was contrary to the record: the report was enclosed with the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply, and that reply was considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

This misrepresentation disentitled him to discretionary relief under Article 226 independently of the merits.

On Rule 16.38, the Court held that the rule was confined to criminal offences committed by a police officer in connection with his official relations with the public. The petitioner’s alleged conduct consisted of obstructing and threatening another police officer and did not fall within that category; consequently, Rule 16.38 was not attracted.

The pendency of the FIR therefore did not prevent the departmental enquiry.

The proposed dismissal in the show-cause notice did not prove pre-determination because the authority considered the petitioner’s response and ultimately imposed a lesser penalty.

Finally, since the enquiry was conducted under Rule 16.24, the charges were supported by evidence, and no violation of natural justice or statutory procedure was established, the Court declined to reassess the evidence or interfere with the punishment under Article 226.

The penalty of forfeiture of five years’ approved service with cumulative effect, along with the appellate and revisional orders affirming it, was upheld.

Pending applications were disposed of and no order as to costs was made.