“Parallel Departmental Enquiry Without District-Magistrate Concurrence in Corruption Cases” – An Extensive Commentary on Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others (2025 PHHC 63125)

1. Introduction

Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others is a consolidated decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered on 13 May 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal. Seven writ petitions filed by serving police officials were disposed of by a common oral order. All petitioners were facing:

• a criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and
• a simultaneous departmental enquiry initiated by the police administration.

The core prayer was twofold:

1. Quash the departmental charge-sheets for want of concurrence of the District Magistrate (DM) as allegedly mandated by Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR).
2. Stay the disciplinary proceedings until finality of the criminal trial to avoid prejudice and self-incrimination.

The Court refused both requests, thereby laying down an important precedent on the interplay of Rule 16.38 vis-à-vis Rule 16.40 PPR and on the permissibility of concurrent departmental action in corruption matters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Bansal held that:

• Rule 16.40 is the specific and governing provision for corruption charges. Because it contains no requirement of DM concurrence, none is needed when specific acts of corruption are involved.
• Rule 16.38 is a general rule; it is triggered only where a preliminary enquiry into a complaint reveals a prima facie criminal offence and the administration nevertheless opts for departmental action instead of prosecution. That factual matrix was absent—the petitioners were already being prosecuted through registered FIRs.
• Departmental proceedings may continue in parallel with the criminal trial. Relying on earlier High Court decisions in Pale Ram, Ishwar Singh, EHC Dhan Singh and a recent 2024 co-ordinate bench judgment (Mustaq & Ors.), the Court found no legal bar or prejudice.
• Accordingly, all writ petitions were dismissed. The disciplinary authorities were directed to decide the enquiries on their own merits, independent of the Court’s observations.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. State Of Haryana v. Ranbir Singh, C.A. 5822/2008 (SC) – Read by the petitioners to insist on mandatory DM approval. The Court distinguished it on facts, noting the absence of an FIR in Ranbir Singh.
2. Mohinder Singh v. State Of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3353 – Similar reliance by petitioners; likewise distinguished.
3. Constable Pale Ram v. State of Haryana, CWP-24413-2012 (P&H) Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP-8085-2012 (P&H) EHC Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) PLR 81 – All uphold that once an FIR is lodged, departmental enquiry can proceed without DM concurrence. These were followed as binding co-ordinate bench precedent.
4. 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 – Cited by petitioners to argue for suspension of disciplinary proceedings pending trial. The Court clarified that those cases deal with complicated questions of fact/law or overlapping evidence, which were not present here.
5. Mustaq & Ors. v. State of Haryana, CWP-5111-2024 (decided 10 Apr 2024) – a recent single-judge judgment (affirmed in intra-court appeals), holding that simultaneous departmental action in corruption cases does not per se prejudice the defence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Special Law versus General Law. Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court reasoned that:
   • Rule 16.38 (general; “criminal offences by police officers”) regulates situations preceding or in lieu of criminal prosecution.
   • Rule 16.40 (specific; “method of dealing with charges of corruption”) expressly governs corruption allegations and contains its own procedural mandate—thorough investigation followed by either judicial prosecution or departmental charge “according to the circumstances of each case.”
   Because a special FIR under the PC Act had already been registered, Rule 16.40 applied exclusively and did not impose the DM-concurrence condition.
2. Statutory Evolution. Rule 16.38 was originally framed in 1934 when corruption offences were prosecuted under the IPC. The PC Act, 1988 – a subsequent and self-contained statute – now governs such crimes. Departmental enquiries are therefore conceptually separate from PC Act prosecution; seeking DM approval under a pre-PC Act rule would defeat the purpose of swift anti-corruption action.
3. Purpose of DM Concurrence. Historically, DM concurrence protected complainants, not accused officers. It ensured that genuine criminal cases were not diverted into mild departmental action. Where prosecution is already launched, that rationale disappears.
4. No Prejudice from Parallel Proceedings. The Court adopted a pragmatic view: the police prosecution will not “fish” for material beyond the Section 173 CrPC report during the domestic enquiry; hence disclosure of defence in the disciplinary forum cannot prejudice the criminal trial.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Administrative Autonomy: Police departments in Haryana (and by analogy Punjab) may now institute departmental enquiries for corruption without routing files through the District Magistrate, expediting internal accountability.
• Uniform Interpretation: Conflicting single-bench decisions are harmonised. Rule 16.40 is confirmed as the operative provision in corruption cases, reducing litigation on the DM-concurrence question.
• Parallel-Proceedings Doctrine Clarified: The High Court’s 2024–25 line of cases, capped by the present judgment, establishes that mere pendency of a PC Act trial does not ipso facto stall departmental action, unless special circumstances (complex facts, overlapping evidence likely to prejudice defence) are demonstrated.
• Disciplinary Timelines: Departments may feel emboldened to conclude enquiries expeditiously, thereby meeting the Supreme Court’s emphasis on prompt disciplinary justice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 16.38 PPR

A general rule framed in 1934: if a preliminary enquiry shows a police officer may have committed a crime while dealing with the public, the normal course is criminal prosecution. If the Superintendent of Police nevertheless prefers only departmental action, concurrence of the District Magistrate is essential.

Rule 16.40 PPR

A specific rule for corruption charges. It allows either judicial prosecution or departmental inquiry after a “thorough investigation,” but does not mention District-Magistrate approval.

Concurrence of District Magistrate

Formal written approval by the DM, traditionally required to start a departmental inquiry instead of criminal prosecution—its purpose was to protect the public interest, not accused officers.

Parallel Proceedings

The simultaneous conduct of departmental (administrative) and criminal (judicial) actions based on the same incident. Indian courts allow it unless (i) the facts and law are so intertwined that disciplinary findings would prejudice the criminal defence, or (ii) special statutory bars exist.

Special Law v. General Law

A principle of statutory interpretation: a provision dealing with a specific subject (special) overrides a more generic one (general) when both ostensibly apply.

5. Conclusion

Narender Kumar’s case decisively settles a recurring administrative-law controversy within the Punjab–Haryana policing framework: In corruption matters prosecuted under the PC Act, disciplinary authorities may initiate and pursue departmental enquiries without first obtaining the concurrence of the District Magistrate, and such enquiries need not await the outcome of parallel criminal trials.

The judgment upholds the primacy of Rule 16.40 PPR, aligns disciplinary processes with the anti-corruption objectives of the PC Act, and underscores judicial tolerance for parallel proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice. For police administration, it means faster internal accountability; for accused officers, it signals the necessity to prepare simultaneous defences in both forums. Future litigants challenging departmental actions on the ground of missing DM approval or sub judice criminal cases will face a significantly higher threshold after this precedent.