Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ISHWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. – Respondent
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226/227 and 311(2) - Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) - Rules 16.2, 16.24 and 16.40 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from service - Competent authority - Prior approval under Rule 16.38 - Opportunity of hearing - Second show cause notice - Length of service - The court upheld the dismissal of a police officer for corruption, rejecting technical challenges regarding the competence of the punishing authority, the need for prior approval from the District Magistrate, and the necessity of a second opportunity for representation on the proposed penalty. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the Haryana Police, was dismissed from service for demanding and accepting a bribe. He challenged the dismissal orders on several technical grounds, including that the Superintendent of Police (SP) was not his appointing authority, that prior approval of the District Magistrate was not obtained, that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority formed its opinion, and that the disciplinary authority did not consider his 32 years of service.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority for an ASI and is competent to impose the punishment of dismissal. The court further held that prior permission under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) is not required for corruption cases, as Rule 16.40 is applicable. Regarding the opportunity of hearing, the court found that the disciplinary authority supplied the inquiry report and a show cause notice proposing the punishment, to which the petitioner replied. The court noted that Rule 16.24 of the PPR does not mandate a separate opportunity to respond to the inquiry report before forming an opinion. The court also held that after the 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, there is no requirement to give an opportunity of making a representation on the proposed penalty, and the government instructions relied upon by the petitioner were advisory and had lost significance. Finally, the court cited Supreme Court precedent to state that a single act of corruption, despite long service, may warrant dismissal, and no leniency is warranted in such cases.
Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the Superintendent of Police was the competent authority to dismiss an ASI; (ii) whether prior approval of the District Magistrate under Rule 16.38 was mandatory; (iii) whether the disciplinary authority should have sought the petitioner's comments before accepting the inquiry report; and (iv) whether the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's length of service.
Ratio Decidendi: A single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under Rule 16.2 of the PPR, as it constitutes a gravest act of misconduct. The requirement of a second opportunity to make a representation on the proposed penalty under Article 311(2) has been deleted by the 42nd Amendment. The court’s interference in disciplinary matters under Article 226 is limited to examining procedural irregularities or perversity in findings; it does not substitute its own view on the quantum of punishment unless it is disproportionate.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case introduction and factual background of the dismissal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's and respondent's arguments presented (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. competent authority and prior permission required (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. due process and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. length of service and pension consideration (Para 12) |
| 6. limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. final dismissal of the petition (Para 16 , 17) |
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 18.01.2008, 14.03.2008 and 07.02.2009 whereby he was dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 14.11.1975. He was promoted from time to time. He was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) at Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula on 15.02.2006. He came to be arrested alleging commission of offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’). FIR No.01 dated 15.02.2006 under Sections 7 and 13 of P.C. Act was registered against him. He was suspended vide order dated 18.02.2006. He was issued charge sheet and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panchkula (DSP) was appointed as Inquiry Officer who in his report dated 29.12.2007 declared the petitioner guilty of demanding and
accepting bribe from Shri Avinash Kumar S/o Shri Moti Lal, resident of House No.126, New Hamida Colony, Yamunanagar. The Inquiry Officer placed the matter before Superintendent of Police (SP) who issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority-SP vide order dated 18.01.2008 dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority. He preferred revision which also came to be dismissed by Director General of Police (DGP).
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that impugned orders are bad and deserve to be set aside on following counts:
(i) The SP was not Competent Authority to pass impugned order. The Appointing Authority of petitioner was Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), thus, dismissal order could be passed by DIG;
(ii) The department initiated inquiry without seeking approval of District Magistrate as envisaged under Rule 16.38 of PPR. Prior permission was mandatory;
(iii) The Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority were two different authorities. The Disciplinary Authority could not accept inquiry report without calling comments from the petitioner whereas in the instant case issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service;
(iv) The State Government has issued instructions to all the authorities that in the show cause notice punishment shall not be proposed;
(v) The petitioner was having 32 years’ service and authorities
passed impugned orders without considering his length of service as required by Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’)
4. Per contra, learned State counsel reiterates contents of orders passed by authorities below. She submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. This Court in Naresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 has already held that SP is Competent Authority to pass punishment order in case of an ASI. The respondent issued show cause notice prior to passing order of punishment and copy of inquiry report was supplied to petitioner, thus, there was compliance of principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice, thus, it cannot be held that there was no opportunity of hearing.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The petitioner’s first contention is th
