Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to procedural fairness and legality, not the merits of factual conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking aside of:-

(i) Show cause notice dated 10.03.2015;

(ii) Order dated 29.04.2015 whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect; and (iii) Order dated 26.08.2015 whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 12.09.1982. He was promoted as ASI in 2009. The respondent initiated departmental proceedings against him in September’ 2010 alleging that he has accepted bribe of Rs.24,000/- from accused Nasir son of Nazir in FIR No.116 of 2009 registered under Section 4B/8 of Cow Slaughtering Act, and Sections 336 and 429 of IPC at Police Station Chhachhrauli for not giving beating during remand. On the basis of report of Inquiry Officer, Superintendent of Police (SP), Yamuna Nagar awarded him punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 21.10.2010. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority. He further preferred revision before Director General of Police (DGP) who vide order dated 22.07.2011 remanded the matter back to Disciplinary Authority with a direction to proceed after taking permission from District Magistrate under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short ‘PPR’). The jurisdictional SP sought approval of District Magistrate under Rule 16.38 of PPR and conducted fresh inquiry. The petitioner was exonerated by Inquiry Officer. The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 15.06.2012 accepted report of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner, at this stage, started raising demand of his two increments which were forfeited. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 10.03.2015 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why order passed by Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar should not be reviewed in terms of Rule 16.28 of PPR. The petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice. The respondent rejected submissions of the petitioner and awarded him punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 29.04.2015. He unsuccessfully preferred mercy appeal before DGP. He further preferred petition before State Government which also came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in the absence of limitation period prescribed under Rule 16.28 of PPR, the authority was bound to issue show cause notice within reasonable period of limitation. In the instant case, show cause notice was issued after three years from the date of passing order by Disciplinary Authority, thus, all the proceedings are bad in the eye of law. The petitioner was found innocent by Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority correctly accepted his report.

4. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana submits that it is factually correct that under Rule 16.28 of PPR no limitation has been prescribed. In the instant case, power has been exercised within three years from the date of order passed by Disciplinary Authority, thus, it cannot be called as beyond reasonable period of limitation. There was misappreciation of evidence on record. In the first inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and his appeal was also dismissed by Appellate Authority.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Disciplinary Authority accepted report of Inquiry Officer vide order dated 15.06.2012. The Reviewing Authority issued notice under