Mandatory procedure under Punjab Police Rules breached where departmental action was proposed and approval lacked independent reasons.

Non-compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules vitiated the disciplinary process because the Superintendent of Police did more than give immediate intimation and instead proposed departmental action, while the District Magistrate merely accorded approval without independently deciding the course of action or recording reasons. The Rule required the District Magistrate to determine whether the complaint should be investigated by a police officer or entrusted to a magistrate, and any departmental disposal had to be supported by reasons. As that mandatory procedure was breached, the disciplinary proceedings were invalid and the dismissal order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order were vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules in that the Superintendent of Police suggested departmental action and the District Magistrate accorded approval without independently deciding the matter or recording reasons.

Analysis: Rule 16.38 required immediate information to the District Magistrate when a complaint against a police officer disclosed a possible criminal offence connected with official relations with the public. The District Magistrate was to decide whether the matter should be investigated by a police officer or made over to a selected magistrate, and where departmental disposal was chosen, the decision had to be supported by reasons. The memorandum sent by the Superintendent of Police went beyond mere intimation and itself proposed departmental enquiry. The District Magistrate's reply merely conveyed sanction without showing an independent decision or reasons. This amounted to a breach of the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules.

Conclusion: The proceedings were invalid for breach of Rule 16.38, and the dismissal order could not be sustained.

---