Review Under Rule 16.28 PPR Not Maintainable Against Appellate Orders; Dismissal Mandatory For RI Exceeding 1 Month: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-10-06

No Discretion to Waive Dismissal for Police Officers Sentenced to Over a Month of Rigorous Imprisonment: P&H High Court Clarifies Police Rules

Chandigarh: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of disciplinary powers under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that dismissal from service is mandatory for an enrolled police officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The court, presided over by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, further established that the power of review under Rule 16.28 of the PPR cannot be exercised against appellate or revisionary orders.

The judgment came while deciding two writ petitions filed by police officers who were dismissed from service following their criminal conviction. The petitioners sought the conversion of their dismissal to compulsory retirement, citing parity with co-accused who had been granted similar relief by the state government.

Background of the Case

The lead petitioner, Krishan Kumar, a constable in the Haryana Police since 1985, was convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment in 2012. Following the conviction, he was dismissed from service. His departmental appeals and revision petitions were subsequently rejected.

However, two of his co-accused had their dismissal orders converted to compulsory retirement by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). Taking a cue from these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking similar relief on the grounds of parity.

The case brought to light a significant contradiction between the stances of the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Home Department of Haryana on the interpretation of the police rules.

Conflicting Arguments from the State

The court noted the starkly different interpretations of the rules presented by the two highest authorities of the state.

• Home Department's Stance: The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) filed an affidavit arguing that Rule 16.2(2) of the PPR, which mandates dismissal, must be read down in light of constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court precedents like State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh . They contended that an automatic dismissal approach is improper and that the department retains discretion to consider mitigating factors such as length of service, nature of the offence, and parity with co-accused, allowing for a lesser punishment like compulsory retirement.

• DGP's Stance: In contrast, the DGP's affidavit asserted that Rule 16.2(2) (as applicable to Haryana) is mandatory and leaves no discretion with the authorities. It was argued that if an officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than one month, dismissal is the only prescribed punishment. Discretion is only available for lesser sentences, such as simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to one month.

Court's Findings on Key Legal Questions

Justice Jagmohan Bansal framed three primary questions for consideration and provided a detailed analysis, settling the ambiguity in the rules.

1. Can a punishment other than dismissal be awarded for RI exceeding one month?

The Court held that the Haryana amendment to Rule 16.2(2) of the PPR is clear and unambiguous. It creates a distinction based on the severity of the sentence.

"The State has made it clear that if an officer is sentenced to simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to one month, he should not be mechanically dismissed from service... No discretion is left with the disciplinary authority if an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than one month."

The Court endorsed the DGP's interpretation, ruling that the first part of Rule 16.2(2) is mandatory, and authorities have no discretion to award a lesser punishment in such cases.

2. Is a review under Rule 16.28 maintainable against appellate/revisionary orders?

The Court concluded that the power of review under Rule 16.28 is a suo motu power intended to correct errors in the original "awards" (punishments) passed by a subordinate disciplinary authority, not against orders passed in appeal or revision. The judgment provided several reasons for this conclusion:

• The rule uses the specific term "awards," not "any order or decision," which limits its scope to the initial punishment order.
• Allowing review of appellate orders would render Rule 16.29(2), which states that an appellate order is final, redundant.
• The power to conduct "further investigation" under Rule 16.28 is appropriate for correcting initial proceedings, not for re-examining concluded appeals or revisions.
• Rule 16.32 already provides a limited scope for review of an appellate order by the appellate authority itself, on the grounds of fresh evidence. A parallel, broader review power for a higher authority would create chaos.

3. Does a reviewing authority have the power to remand?

The Court observed that Rule 16.28 empowers the reviewing authority to "confirm, enhance, modify or annul" an award and to conduct further investigation. However, it does not confer the power to remand the matter back to a subordinate authority. The Court held that statutory authorities cannot exercise inherent powers they are not explicitly granted.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed the petition of Krishan Kumar, upholding his dismissal from service.

However, in the connected petition of Balwati, where the Home Department had already set aside her punishment in a "mercy appeal" (treated as a review), the Court quashed the subsequent order of the Superintendent of Police that had withdrawn her restored increments. The Court reasoned that the SP, being a subordinate authority, was bound to follow the Home Secretary's order, irrespective of its legal tenability, until it was quashed by a competent authority.

This landmark judgment provides crucial clarity on the disciplinary framework governing the police force in Haryana, reinforcing the mandatory nature of dismissal for serious criminal convictions and streamlining the hierarchy of appeal, revision, and review.