Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Lalit Kumar vs Director General Of Police on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
( 2026:HHC:10348 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 12782 of 2025
.
Decided on: 06.04.2026
Sh. Lalit Kumar .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh and others
of
.....Respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
rt ________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department in the year 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable and as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 28th July, 2022. He was posted as a Station House Officer on 22nd October, 2023. On 09.01.2024, an FIR was registered against the petitioner, i.e., FIR No. 01 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Baddi (SV and ACB). The petitioner was arrested after lodging of FIR and was subsequently released on bail. As a result of the registration of the FIR, 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS
2. ( 2026:HHC:10348 ) the petitioner was placed under suspension and a regular departmental inquiry was initiated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Police .
District Baddi vide Annexure P-2, dated 10.1.2024. On 06.02.2024, the inquiry was handed over to one Shri Ashok Verma, Additional Superintendent of Police, Baddi and thereafter, it was handed over to Shri Khajana Ram, SDPO, Baddi. After completion of inquiry, a show of cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2025 vide Annexure P-11 by the Commandant, 4th IRB, Jangalberi, H.P. that on the basis of rt inquiry report, why punishment of "Compulsory Retirement", as per the provision of Rule 11(vii) of CCS (CCA) Rules/ under Section 87(2)(1)(C) of the H.P. Police Act-2007 should not be awarded to the petitioner for his misconduct. In this backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the quashing of Show Cause Notice and also for the stay of proposed punishment till the conclusion of the trial in the FIR.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner after lodging of the FIR are non est in the eyes of law. He submitted that in terms of Clause 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as are applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the light of the contents of the FIR which was registered against the petitioner, prior concurrence of the District Magistrate was necessary to be taken before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and as in the present ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS
3. ( 2026:HHC:10348 ) case, this has not been done, the entire proceedings are per se illegal and void abinitio. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court .
through the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as are applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh and submitted that in terms of these Rules, immediate information has to be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, of which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public and the District rt Magistrate has to decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a Police Officer, or made over to a selected Executive Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the allegations that were made against the petitioner in the FIR, obviously, as the allegations were relatable to the official relations of the petitioner with the public, the Superintendent of Police could not have unilaterally handed over the investigation to an officer, as was done in the present case. He submitted that the Superintendent of Police was required to inform the District Magistrate of the complaint received and it was for the District Magistrate to decide whether the investigation of the complaint was to be conducted by the Police Officer or a selected Executive Magistrate. Accordingly, he submitted that as the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS
4. ( 2026:HHC:10348 ) Himachal Pradesh, stood violated, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was of having been caught red handed while receiving a bribe of Rs.20000/-. The petitioner had failed of to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, as desired from a Police Official on duty and tarnished the image of Police Department rt and eroded the public trust in uniform. He further submitted that the offence, as was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, was not related to public, hence, the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules were not attracted and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the inquiry that stood conducted on the directions of the Superintendent of Police concerned. No further point was urged.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.
5. The FIR which was lodged against the petitioner is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. The allegations against the petitioner by the complainant, inter alia, are to the effect that the complainant had lodged a complaint qua illegal mining, on phone, to the petitioner (Station House Officer, Maanpura), but a case was ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS
5. ( 2026:HHC:10348 ) registered against the complainant himself, qua which, the complainant wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Baddi. It is further mentioned in .
the FIR that thereafter, Station House Officer, Maanpura, namely, Sh.
Lalit Kumar, i.e., the present petitioner, started calling the complainant on phone. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith two other persons, met the petitioner. The petitioner took the phone numbers of Saleem of and Amrik and called them telephonically. Petitioner also asked Amrik to talk to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner called the complainant rt on 09.01.2024 and demanded bribe. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount being asked as bribe by the petitioner. To cut the controversy short, this is the foundation, on which, the FIR was lodged.
6. Now, in terms of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, the condition precedent is that the Superintendent of Police has to send the information to the District Magistrate only when a criminal offence has been committed by a Police Officer 'in connection with his official relations with the public'.
7. The alleged bribe demanded from the complainant by the present petitioner was in his capacity as the Station House Officer of the Police Station, in which, the complainant had lodged a complaint about illegal mining and in which Police Station, as a counter blast thereto, a complaint was registered against the said complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS6. ( 2026:HHC:10348 )
8. Therefore, it is not as if FIR was lodged against the petitioner in his private capacity. Obviously, had the petitioner not been .
posted as Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned, there was no occasion for him to have had come in touch with the complainant. Thus, obviously, the alleged offence committed by the petitioner was in connection with his official relations with the public.
of This, in fact, is also evident from the reply filed by the respondent-
Department, wherein they themselves say that the petitioner, being a rt member of the disciplined force failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, as desired from a Police Official on duty and, thus, tarnished the image of Police Department and eroded the public trust in uniform. Therefore, there in fact is an admission on the part of the respondents that the alleged act of the petitioner, which led to the registration of the FIR, was on account of his conduct "on duty".
9. In this backdrop, in the light of the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to have had followed the procedure laid therein and, as the needful was not done in the present case by the Superintendent of Police, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police is void abinitio and is held as such.
::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS7. ( 2026:HHC:10348 )
10. The act of the Superintendent of Police of not following the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as .
applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, renders the entire exercise undertaken by him as bad in law. The initiation of inquiry against the petitioner, the inquiry proceedings as well as the show-
cause notice issued to the petitioner as to why the proposed of punishment be not awarded to him are bad in law. It was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to have had followed the provisions rt provided in Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh in letter and spirit.
11. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, this petition is partly allowed. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the inquiry report and the Show-Cause Notice dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P-11) are quashed and set aside, on the ground that the foundation of the proceedings was bad in law, being in violation of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules. However, in the light of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings have been set aside by the Court on technical ground, i.e., violation of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, liberty is granted to the Superintendent of Police to proceed against the petitioner by following the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as are applicable to the State of Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS
8. ( 2026:HHC:10348 ) Pradesh, in letter and spirit. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (bhupender) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:33:59 :::CIS