No Discretion to Avoid Dismissal for Police Officers Sentenced to Over a Month of Rigorous Imprisonment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Rule 16.2(2) PPR - 2025-09-30

Punjab & Haryana High Court Delivers Landmark Ruling on Police Disciplinary Rules, Curtails Government's Review Powers

Chandigarh, September 23, 2025 – In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of disciplinary actions against police personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that dismissal is mandatory for any officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that authorities have no discretion to award a lesser punishment under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR), as applicable to Haryana.

The court also decisively curtailed the state government's power to entertain "mercy petitions," ruling that a review under Rule 16.28 of the PPR is not maintainable against appellate or revisionary orders passed by senior police authorities. This decision came while adjudicating two separate petitions filed by police officers Krishan Kumar and Balwati, which involved common questions of law regarding police service rules.

Case Background

The primary case, Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana , involved a constable dismissed in 2012 following his conviction and a three-year sentence for various offences under the IPC. Kumar sought the conversion of his dismissal to compulsory retirement, citing the precedent of two co-accused officers who were granted this relief by the state government.

This prompted the High Court to scrutinize the legal framework, leading to a direct conflict in the stances of the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Haryana, on the interpretation of the police rules.

Clashing Arguments: Mandatory Rule vs. Discretionary Power

The state's response revealed a deep administrative divide on the issue of punishment post-conviction.

• The Home Department's Stance: The Home Secretary argued that dismissal is not an automatic consequence of conviction. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh , she contended that authorities must exercise discretion, considering factors like the nature of the offence, length of service, and parity with co-accused. The department justified treating "mercy petitions" from officers as review petitions under Rule 16.28 of the PPR, even against final orders from the DGP.

• The DGP's Stance: In a starkly contrasting affidavit, the DGP asserted that Rule 16.2(2) of the PPR is mandatory. He stated that if a police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for more than one month, the department has no choice but to order their dismissal. Discretion is only available for lesser sentences, such as simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of up to one month.

Court's Three-Point Legal Clarification

After a detailed examination of the statutory framework, Justice Bansal resolved three critical legal questions that have significant implications for police administration and disciplinary proceedings.

1. On Punishment for Convicted Officers: The Court held that the Haryana amendment to Rule 16.2(2) of the PPR is unambiguous and mandatory. It states that an officer "shall... be dismissed" if sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The Court observed, "The State Government by way of amending sub-rule (2) has made its policy clear. No discretion is left with the disciplinary authority if an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than one month."

2. On the Scope of Government's Review Power: The Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the appeal, revision, and review mechanisms under the PPR. It concluded that the power of review under Rule 16.28 is restricted to the original "awards" (punishments) passed by a disciplinary authority. It cannot be used to scrutinize or overturn orders passed by appellate or revisionary authorities, such as the DGP. The judgment reasoned that allowing such a review would render the finality of appellate orders under Rule 16.29(2) redundant and create administrative chaos. The Court noted, "If expression ‘awards’ is declared to include appellate or revisionary orders, it would amount to re-writing the provision which is impermissible."

3. On Remanding Cases During Review: The Court also clarified that a reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 has no power to remand a case back to a subordinate authority. The rule empowers the authority to confirm, modify, annul, or enhance an award and even conduct a further investigation, but not to send it back for reconsideration.

Final Verdict and Its Implications

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed Krishan Kumar's petition, upholding his dismissal from service as it was in line with the mandatory provisions of Rule 16.2(2).

However, in the connected case of Balwati, the Court set aside a notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, which had withdrawn her restored increments. The Court noted that although the "mercy appeal" allowed by the Home Department was not maintainable in light of its findings, the order passed by the Home Secretary was binding on the SP until it was quashed by a competent authority. "Superintendent of Police is bound to follow and honour orders of Home Secretary. He has no authority to set-aside or ignore orders of Home Department," the Court directed.

This judgment establishes crucial guardrails on the disciplinary process within the Haryana Police, reinforcing the statutory mandate over discretionary administrative actions and streamlining the hierarchy of appeals and reviews.