JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 11.12.2003 whereby Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala has enhanced the punishment awarded by disciplinary authority.

2. The petitioners belong to Haryana Police Force. In 2001, they were posted at Police Post, Titram, District Kaithal. In the intervening night of 05/06.12.2001, Deputy Superintendent of Police checked Naka Titram at 01:30 A.M. The petitioners were present on duty. Two-three trucks were lying parked there. The DSP asked reason for standing at Naka from one driver who disclosed that policemen are demanding Rs.200/- from each driver. The petitioners were placed under suspension. They were subjected to departmental inquiry wherein they were found guilty. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.07.2003 awarded them punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect. They preferred appeals before Appellate Authority which issued them show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The notice was issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, “PPR”). The petitioners filed reply to show cause notice. The Appellate Authority dismissed their appeals and enhanced punishment from forfeiture of one increment to three increments. They preferred appeal before Director General of Police who vide order dated 29.03.2005 dismissed the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners preferred appeal before appellate authority who did not consider their appeal in true spirit. The appellate authority not only dismissed their appeals but also enhanced punishment. There was no witness against them. Deputy Superintendent of Police made inquiry from one truck driver who did not support case of prosecution during departmental inquiry.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Rule 16.28 of PPR permits higher authority to review order of subordinates. Higher authority may pass such order as deemed fit. In the present case, the appellate authority found that punishment awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence, thus, issued show cause notice and passed impugned order of punishment.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that appellate authority has passed impugned order in exercise of power conferred by Rule 16.28 of PPR. Rule 16.28 of PPR for the ready reference is reproduced as below:

“16.28 Powers to review proceedings. - (1) The Inspector General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by their Subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. The State Government may also call for the records and review the awards made by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab or by any other authority subordinate to him. (2) If an award of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall state whether it is to be regarded as suspension followed by reinstatement, or not. The order should also state whether service previous to dismissal should count for pension or not. (3) In all cases in which officers purpose to enhance an award they shall, before passing final orders, give the defaulter concerned an opportunity of showing cause, either personally or in writing, why his punishment should not be enhanced.”

7. As per aforesaid Rule, Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police/Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by his subordinates and enhance the same. It means higher authorities carry power to enhance quantum of punishment. This Court has noticed that officers normally exercise power under said Rule where appeal is filed by delinquent. The said Rule is not implemented in true spirit. The disciplinary authority mu