Departmental punishments must not violate principles of proportionality and reasonable limitation periods.

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 No.14397 of 2015.

2. The petitioner (in CWP No. 14397 of 2015) is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect. In CWP No.32291 of 2019, he is seeking setting aside of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 2006-2007.

3. The petitioner joined Police Force as Constable on 03.10.1989. He was promoted from time to time. In 2006, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he has forged signatures and stamp of District Inspector. At that point of time, he was posted as Reader of the District Inspector of Police, Narnaul. The said office was concerned with registration of vehicles. Chief Minister Flying Squad conducted an inquiry and found that Darshan Singh who was working as Typist in Court Complex was going to submit files for registration of vehicles after getting affixed forged seal and signatures of District Inspector, Narnaul. The respondent registered FIR No.69 dated 28.03.2006 under Sections 420 , 467, 478, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Narnaul. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The Inquiry Officer found him innocent in the preliminary as well as regular departmental inquiry. The Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh i.e. Disciplinary Authority accepted report of Inquiry Officer and dropped the matter on 13.10.2008.

4. The Inspector General of Police (‘IGP’), Rewari in exercise of power conferred by Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’) issued show cause notice dated 15.04.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect should not be awarded to him. He filed reply to show cause notice and IGP, Rewari vide order dated 04.10.2011 awarded him punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. It is apt to mention here that IGP, Rewari awarded punishment of 5% cut in pension to Inspector Ran Singh who had conducted investigation of aforesaid FIR. The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Director General of Police, Haryana (‘DGP’) vide order dated 25.05.2012. He preferred CWP No.13207 of 2012 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2014 with a direction to Director General of Police to pass fresh order. In compliance of aforesaid order, DGP passed order dated 05.02.2015 whereby petitioner’s claim was rejected.

5. Besides aforesaid punishment, the Additional Director General of Police (‘ADGP’), Rewari directed the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’), Palwal to downgrade petitioner’s ACR as per Government Instructions dated 22.10.2001. SP, Palwal issued a show cause notice dated 07.10.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his ACR should not be downgraded. SP vide order dated 15.10.2019 downgraded petitioner’s ACR for the period from 2007-08. The respondent claims that petitioner’s ACR for 2007-08 was inadvertently downgraded whereas it should be 2006-07. As per Government Instructions dated 15.05.1990, no fresh show cause notice is required for downgrading ACR where ACR is downgraded while passing punishment order, however, another show cause notice is required where punishment is already awarded. The petitioner claims that he has preferred representation against aforesaid adverse remarks before IGP, Rewari whereas respondent is denying receipt of said representati