Rule 16.38 Of PCA Has No Application Where FIR Is Registered | Departmental Inquiry Can Proceed Independently In Corruption Cases Says Punjab And Haryana High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the continuation of departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal trials. The Court held that where charges relate to specific acts of corruption and FIRs have been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is inapplicable. The Court directed that departmental proceedings may continue independently of the criminal trials without seeking the concurrence of the District Magistrate.
The petitioners, all police personnel serving in various ranks within the Haryana Police, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. They challenged departmental inquiries initiated against them pursuant to FIRs registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The lead case involved FIR No. 13 dated 26.10.2021 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station SVB, Gurugram, based on a statement given by one Balbir Singh. According to the complaint, Balbir Singh alleged that he had paid ₹5,00,000 through the petitioner to an Investigating Officer involved in an earlier case (FIR No. 349 dated 23.11.2017) that included multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code and the PC Act. The investigating authority initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner following the registration of the FIR.
The petitioners contended that such departmental proceedings could not be validly commenced without first obtaining approval from the District Magistrate, as mandated by Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as extended to the State of Haryana). They argued that the absence of such concurrence rendered the proceedings void ab initio.
It was submitted that Rule 16.38 governs criminal offences committed by police officers in the course of their official duties involving the public and mandates that, in cases where the Superintendent of Police wishes to proceed departmentally instead of via judicial prosecution, the concurrence of the District Magistrate must be obtained. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Ranbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2008, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Mohinder Singh v. State of H.P. and others, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3353.
On behalf of the State of Haryana, it was submitted that FIRs had already been registered and criminal trials initiated in each case, and hence, Rule 16.38 was inapplicable. The State relied on judgments including Constable Pale Ram v. State of Haryana (CWP-24413-2012), Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana (CWP-8085-2012), and EHC Dhan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2019 (1) PLR 81, to contend that prior approval of the District Magistrate was not necessary when criminal prosecution had already commenced.
The departmental inquiries were challenged also on the ground that they would prejudice the petitioners’ right to defend themselves in parallel criminal trials. They cited Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti (2022) 12 SCC 390, to argue for deferral of the disciplinary proceedings.
In all the connected matters, the petitioners were facing criminal proceedings arising out of specific allegations of corruption, with FIRs registered and charges framed or pending. The petitioners' central prayer was for the quashing or deferment of departmental proceedings initiated without District Magistrate concurrence.
The Court examined Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and its substituted version applicable in Haryana. It recorded that: “Rule 16.38 is a general provision and it deals with complaints alleging commission of any criminal offence in connection with official relations with public whereas Rule 16.40 is a specific provision which deals with charges of corruption.”
It further stated: “From the conjoint reading of Rule 16.38 and Rule 16.40 of PPR, it is evident that Rule 16.40 has further categorized charges of corruption in two parts. First part deals with general charges of corruption whereas second part deals with specific acts of corruption.”
The Court held that in all petitions before it, the allegations pertained to specific acts of corruption, making Rule 16.40 applicable and rendering Rule 16.38 inapplicable. The Bench explained: “Rule 16.40 has no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate, thus, respondent has lawfully initiated departmental proceedings.”
On the claim that the departmental proceedings would prejudice the criminal defence, the Court observed: “Departmental proceedings can certainly continue despite pendency of criminal proceedings... No complicated question(s) of law or facts arise in the present case so as to fulfill one of the essential ingredients for considering stay of departmental proceedings.”
The Court referred to Mustaq and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-5111-2024, decided on 10.04.2024), where it was held: “The plea of prejudice raised is misconceived... there seems to be no justification in the prayer made by petitioner for staying of disciplinary proceedings.”
The Bench acknowledged that in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. the Supreme Court did not prohibit departmental proceedings where allegations of corruption were involved and clarified:
“The Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields (supra) has not held that departmental proceedings, especially when there are allegations of corruption, cannot continue on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending before Trial Court.”
Addressing the argument based on the Ranbir Singh judgment, the Court distinguished it by observing: “In the case in hand, police has registered FIR against the delinquent and thereafter departmental proceedings have been initiated. Concurrence of District Magistrate is necessary where criminal proceedings are not initiated and departmental proceedings are initiated despite preliminary inquiry or investigation of a complaint establishing commission of criminal offence.”
On the doctrine of special law prevailing over general law, the Court recorded: “The petitioners have been booked under PC Act which is a special law, thus, 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 reaffirmed that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecutions and governed by separate statutory and procedural frameworks.
The Court conclusively held that Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was not applicable where FIRs for specific acts of corruption had been registered. It declared: “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.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all petitions. It clarified: “It is hereby made clear that departmental authorities shall adjudicate pending proceedings without being influenced by dismissal of these petitions. This Court has not expressed its opinion on merit.”
The Court further noted: “In the backdrop, all the petitions stand dismissed.”
It confirmed that: “The departmental proceedings can continue independently and are not required to be deferred during the pendency of criminal trials initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
The decision disapproved of the petitioners’ reliance on Rule 16.38 in the context of corruption cases where judicial prosecution had already commenced.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Choudhary, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana
Case Title: Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others & connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:063125
Case Numbers: CWP-15246-2022, CWP-19655-2022, CWP-28784-2022, CWP-8550-2023, CWP-17253-2024, CWP-18081-2024, CWP-35597-2019
Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal
[Read/Download order]
