The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), approval from the District Magistrate (DM) is not mandatory to begin departmental proceedings against police officers involved in corruption cases.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while interpreting Rule 16.40 of the PPR, stated:
“The authorities were supposed to initiate judicial prosecution or departmental proceedings depending on circumstances of each case. There is no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate under Rule 16.40, thus, respondent has lawfully initiated departmental proceedings.”
The Court pointed out that the petitioners, who were police officials, were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), a special law that supersedes general provisions under the PPR. As a result, departmental action under Rules 16.24 and 16.40 was held to be valid even without DM’s approval.
“The petitioners have been booked under PC Act which is a special law. Their prosecution has no concern with general law i.e., PPR. There is no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Rule 16.24 read with 16.40,” the Court clarified.
This ruling came in response to multiple petitions from Haryana police personnel who had argued that departmental proceedings initiated during their ongoing criminal trials were invalid due to lack of DM approval. They cited Rule 16.38 of PPR to support their case.
However, the Court distinguished between the two rules. Rule 16.38, it noted, applies to general criminal allegations arising from complaints in official dealings with the public. In contrast, Rule 16.40 specifically deals with corruption, making it the applicable provision in this case.
“Rule 16.38 is a general rule, whereas Rule 16.40 is a specific provision for corruption charges. Specific law overrides general law,” the Court said.
Read Also:- High Court: Simply Knowing Absconder’s Location Not ‘Harbouring’ Without Active Help to Evade Arrest
The petitioners also contended that facing departmental proceedings during a pending criminal trial would prejudice their defense. The Court rejected this, citing settled law:
“It can be concluded that the respondent cannot travel beyond the police report, thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to petitioner, if he leads his defence in departmental proceedings.”
Referring to earlier judgments, including Pale Ram vs State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that when a formal FIR is already registered under the PC Act, departmental inquiries can run parallel and do not require prior DM consent.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all connected petitions, making it clear that the departmental proceedings would continue unaffected by these pleas.
Title: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 15246 and 28784 of 2022 and 18081 of 2024.
Mr. Kuldeep Choudhary, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-35597-2019).
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-19655-2022).
Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos.8550 of 2023 and 17253 of 2024).
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
