JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: (Oral) - This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant wherein he had challenged the order of forfeiture of five year’s of service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was on duty at Railway Police Station, Amritsar. One Smt. Parveen Akhtar, a Pakistani National made a complaint that he had tried to criminally assault her. The complaint was referred to the District Magistrate who ordered a preliminary inquiry. After considering the report of the preliminary enquiry the District Magistrate granted sanction under Rule 16.38(2) of the Punjab Police Rules for holding regular departmental enquiry against the appellant. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and the punishment was imposed. Both the Courts below having been dismissed the suit of the appellant, he has approached this Court. 3. When this appeal was filed no question of law was proposed. Today learned counsel appearing for the appellant has proposed the following question of law:- Whether a non-speaking order for holding departmental enquiry by the District Magistrate is violative of Rule 16.38? 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that a perusal of Rule 16.38 clearly shows that in a case where the police official is accused of having committed any criminal offence the criminal proceedings are the rule and only by recording the reasons in writing can the District Magistrate depart from this rule and order departmental enquiry. He has read before this Court the order of the District Magistrate sanctioning departmental enquiry and it is clear that no reasons have been recorded therein. In this connection he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nand Nandan Sarup v. The District Magistrate, Patiala and others, reported in Vol. LXVIII – 1966, PLR 747, wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that failure to record reasons for proceeding departmentally instead of judicial prosecution, renders the order illegal and this dictum is followed in an unbroken line of judgments since then which are as follows:- 1. Shri Jagan Nath v. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and others, PLR (Vol. LXIII-1961), 860. 2. Delhi Administration and others v. Chanan Shah, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1108 3. Union of India v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1403 4. Shri Jagan Nath v. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and others, PLR (Vol. LXIII-1961), 860. 2. Delhi Administration and others v. Chanan Shah, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1108 3. Union of India v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1403 4. Malkiyat Singh v. Delhi Administration and others, 1989 (2) RSJ 74 (Delhi High Court) 5. Sarup Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1983 (3) SLR 585 (P&H) 6. The Punjab State v. Lachhman Singh, Ex. Constable, 2010(2) RSJ 474 (P&H) 7. Dhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(4) RSJ 451 (P&H) 5. As per learned senior counsel these decisions would be binding precedent on this Court. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand has argued that one possible point of view has not been considered in these judgments. As per learned Deputy Advocate General criminal proceedings have much more serious consequences than departmental enquiry for the simple reason that consequences of being found guilty in the first case may result in loss of liberty while in the second case it could at worst be a case of dismissal from service without any impact on the liberty of a person. In this background a perusal of Rule 16.38 reveals that it has been enacted only to obviate any chances that a policeman can be favoured by not subjecting him to criminal proceedings even if the act complained of while being an infraction of service rules is also a criminal offence. Thus, it has been made mandatory that in such a case a policeman should be brought before a Court of law and tried for a criminal offence. Resultantly, it has to be held that such an official cannot be aggrieved of an order whereby departmental proceedings are directed to be started against him as opposed to an initiation of criminal proceedings. It would be akin to a case where the prosecution challenges an acquittal on the ground that the accused was not permitted to put forward his version under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or a person challenging his conviction on the ground that a cited prosecution witness had not appeared to give his testimony. Both these can be the grounds for setting aside an order but if this grouse is raised by a person who is beneficiary thereof it cannot be permitted. Both these can be the grounds for setting aside an order but if this grouse is raised by a person who is beneficiary thereof it cannot be permitted. In this regard learned Deputy Advocate General has relied upon the judgment in the case of Haryana State through Collector, Karnal v. Raghbir Singh, reported in 2002(2) SLR 757 where this line of argument was accepted. 7. In the opinion of this Court though this argument cannot be brushed aside summarily yet it must be noticed that none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant was considered in the case of Raghbir Singh (supra) and this Court would be bound by the decisions of the larger Benches. Thus the question has to be answered in favour of the appellant and it is held that the departmental inquiry was wrongly ordered. 8. In normal circumstances, such matter would have to be referred back to the District Magistrate for fresh decision in view of the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy reported in 1996(9) SCC 322, but in the present case it would not be possible since the appellant is stated to have now retired and the incident is alleged to have happened almost a quarter century ago. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the learned Courts below are set aside. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------