IMPORTANT POINT
The Revisional Authority cannot enhance the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority against the revision petitioner, as per Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

CMP No.3493 of 2024

For the reasons stated therein, present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.3551 of 2022

With the consent of the parties the case was taken up for consideration today itself.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry having been initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P5), the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal. This appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority in terms of order dated 23.08.2021 and while allowing the appeal of the petitioner partly, the Appellate Authority modified the order of dismissal from service to forfeiture of two years service on permanent basis. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereinbelow:

“The undersigned has gone through the enquiry proceedings and the representation made against the dismissal. Appellant was given opportunity to express his views. Appellant has pleaded for sympathetic and compassionate view, It’s belt that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the delinquent is disproportionate to the degree of misconduct. Therefore the penalty of dismissal from service is reduced to forfeiture of 02 years (two years) service on permanent basis and it's being ordered to reinstate him with immediate effect. The period of suspension w.e.f 21.08.2018 to 29.11.2018 is also hereby ordered to be treated as period spent on duty. The period from the date of dismissal of service to date of rejoining the service shall be considered dies-non for all purposes i.e. pay, pension, leave and increment etc. A copy of order be supplied to the appellant free of cost under proper receipt under intimation to this office.”

3. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority and in terms of the impugned order (Annexure P8) while dismissing his revision, the Revisional Authority further `modified the order passed by the Appellate Authority and increased the punishment to four years of service to forfeiture on permanent basis.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that as it was a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, therefore, the Revisional Authority could have either allowed the Revision Petition or dismissed it. But, by no stretch of imagination the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Appellate Authority could have been enhanced by the Revisional Authority as has been done in the present case.

5. Rules 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules as is applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh is quoted hereineblow:

“[16.32. Revision. An officer whose appeal has been rejected is prohibited from applying for a fresh scrutiny of the evidence. Such officer may, however, apply, within a month of the date of despatch of appellate orders to him, to the authority next above the prescribed appellate authority for revision on grounds of material irregularity in the proceedings or on production of fresh evidence, and may submit to the same authority a plea for mercy : provided that no application for the revision of an order by the Inspector-General will be entertained. An officer whose appeal has been heard by the Inspector-General may, however, submit to the Inspector-General a plea for mercy or may apply to the Inspector-General for a review of his appellate order only on the ground that fresh evidence has become available since the appellate order has been pronounced. This rule does not affect the provisions of rule 16.28. Such application or plea must be in English.1”

A perusal of the language of this Rule is suggestive of the fa