IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Inspector Prithvi Singh ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate, With Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) whereby petitioner has been awarded punishment of reduction in rank i.e.

from Inspector to Sub Inspector.

2. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate submits that petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 01.12.1988 and he was promoted from time to time. He was issued charge sheet in 2017 and Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.08.2017 wherein he was exonerated. Jurisdictional Superintendent of Police i.e. Disciplinary Authority agreed with the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority sent its report to higher authorities confirming exoneration of the petitioner. On 26.09.2024, the Director General of Police (DGP) directed Inspector General of Police (IGP) to review order dated 21.08.2017. The jurisdictional IGP issued show cause notice dated 19.12.2024. The petitioner in his reply categorically raised question of limitation, nevertheless, respondent has ordered to reduce his rank i.e. from Inspector to Sub Inspector. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector in 2023 and he is going to retire in 2026.

3. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana filed reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 which is taken on record. He submits that on the direction of Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police has exercised power in terms of Rule 16.28 of (Punjab Police Rules, 1934) as made applicable to State of Haryana (in short ‘PPR’). There was another delinquent namely Ashok Kumar Sabharwal (DSP) in the departmental proceedings. He was awarded punishment of reduction of pension to the extent of 5%. His matter reached to Government. At that stage it was considered that case of petitioner should also be reconsidered. This was the reason of issuance of direction from DGP to IGP to review order dated 21.08.2017. With respect to limitation to exercise power under 16.28, he submits that under the Rule no limitation period has been prescribed, thus, this Court cannot import any limitation period under the said Rule.

4. The entire dispute is centered around the interpretation of Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules, thus, it is inevitable to look at the said rule which 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.”

5. From the perusal of above quoted rule, it comes out that Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General and Senior Superintendent of Police, may call record of awards made by their subordinates. These officers may confirm, enhance, modify or annul the order passed by their subordinates. They before passing order of confirmation or enhancement or modification or annulm