The imposition of dismissal as punishment for police officers is not absolute; discretion based on individual case circumstances and nature of the offence must be exercised, as upheld by Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

AGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-14996-2025.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider his representation dated nil (Annexure P-6) as well demand notice dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) and convert his punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement on the ground of parity.

Facts

3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 01.10.1985. He along with his colleagues came to be implicated in FIR No.62 dated 25.03.2001 under Sections 302/323/342/167/34 of IPC. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2012 acquitted them of charge under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC, however, convicted under Section 323, 342, 167 and 34 of IPC. They were awarded rigorous imprisonment of three years. They have filed appeals against judgment of conviction which are still pending before this Court.

4. On account of conviction, the petitioner and other police officials were dismissed from service vide order dated 16.11.2012. They preferred appeals against dismissal order which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority. They further preferred revision petitions before Director General of Police (for short ‘DGP’) which came to be dismissed. Co-accused-SI Gharsa Ram preferred mercy petition before State Government and Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department vide order dated 23.12.2013 reduced punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement. Co-accused EHC Kuldeep Singh preferred CWP-4913-2019 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2019 with a direction to respondent to decide his mercy petition. Matter of Kuldeep Singh again came up for consideration before DGP who on the ground of parity converted punishment of dismissal of service into compulsory retirement subject to outcome of CRM-3207-SB-2012. The petitioner taking cue from orders passed in the case of Gharsa Ram and Kuldeep Singh preferred undated representation to Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Home Department seeking conversion of his dismissal into compulsory retirement. The said representation was followed by demand notice dated 16.09.2023.

5. This Court keeping in mind mandate of Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules , 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’) vide order dated 23.05.20025 asked Home Secretary to file affidavit explaining as to how an officer who has already been convicted and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month can be compulsorily retired instead of being dismissed from service.

6. In compliance of order dated 23.05.2025 of this Court, the Home Secretary filed affidavit dated 17.07.2025 deposing that as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh ’, (1997) 2 SCC 550, the expression ‘shall be dismissed must be considered in the light of nature of offence, mitigating circumstances and proportionality of punishment. There should be some discretion. The Court disapproved automatic dismissal approach and held that case must be evaluated on its facts and blanket mandate like Rule 16.2(2) of PPR must be interpreted harmoniously with constitutional safeguards. The r