position was also followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 1006 of 2011 ( Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana ) decided on 03.11.2012 wherein it was held that “A perusal of the above Rule would show that where the Superintendent of Police on the basis of the preliminary enquiry or investigation conducted into a complaint primafacie establishes allegations of commission of a criminal offence in connection with an enrolled police official in relations with the public and if the Superintendent of Police instead of initiating judicial prosecution, which should normally follow, takes a decision and proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, he has to seek the concurrence of the District Magistrate prior to initiating the departmental enquiry. It, therefore, indicates that in case the Superintendent of Police decides not to proceed with the judicial prosecution and instead proceeds against the enrolled police officer departmentally, prima-facie commission of a criminal offence in connection with the official relations with the public should be established. If this is not there, the Superintendent of Police, on its own, can proceed against the enrolled police officer and concurrence of the District Magistrate is not required. Therefore, the applicability of Rule 16.38 of the 1934 Rules would depend from case to case and the facts involved therein, which has to be primarily determined by the Superintendent of Police.
