IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

Reserved on : 17.09.2025

Pronounced on : 23.09.2025

1. CWP-14996-2025

KRISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHAN LAL ...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents

And

2. CWP-23420-2025 (O&M)

BALWATI ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-14996-2025)

Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-23420-2025)

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G, Haryana with

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana

Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

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-14996-2025.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227

CWP-14996-2025 -2-

of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider

his representation dated nil (Annexure P-6) as well demand notice dated

16.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) and convert his punishment of dismissal from

service into compulsory retirement on the ground of parity.

Facts

3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on

01.10.1985. He along with his colleagues came to be implicated in FIR

No.62 dated 25.03.2001 under Sections 302/323/342/167/34 of IPC. The

Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2012 acquitted them of charge

under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC, however, convicted under Section 323,

342, 167 and 34 of IPC. They were awarded rigorous imprisonment of

three years. They have filed appeals against judgment of conviction

which are still pending before this Court.

4. On account of conviction, the petitioner and other police

officials were dismissed from service vide order dated 16.11.2012. They

preferred appeals against dismissal order which came to be dismissed by

Appellate Authority. They further preferred revision petitions before

Director General of Police (for short ‘DGP’) which came to be dismissed.

Co-accused-SI Gharsa Ram preferred mercy petition before State

Government and Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana,

Home Department vide order dated 23.12.2013 reduced punishment of

dismissal to compulsory retirement. Co-accused EHC Kuldeep Singh

preferred CWP-4913-2019 before this Court which came to be disposed

of vide order dated 25.02.2019 with a direction to respondent to decide

his mercy petition. Matter of Kuldeep Singh again came up for

CWP-14996-2025 -3-

consideration before DGP who on the ground of parity converted

punishment of dismissal of service into compulsory retirement subject to

outcome of CRM-3207-SB-2012. The petitioner taking cue from orders

passed in the case of Gharsa Ram and Kuldeep Singh preferred undated

representation to Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana,

Home Department seeking conversion of his dismissal into compulsory

retirement. The said representation was followed by demand notice dated

16.09.2023.

5. This Court keeping in mind mandate of Rule 16.2(2) of

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short

‘PPR’) vide order dated 23.05.20025 asked Home Secretary to file

affidavit explaining as to how an officer who has already been convicted

and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month can

be compulsorily retired instead of being dismissed from service.

6. In compliance of order dated 23.05.2025 of this Court, the

Home Secretary filed affidavit dated 17.07.2025 deposing that as per

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab and Ors. Vs.

Dharam Singh’, (1997) 2 SCC 550, the expression ‘shall be dismissed’

must be considered in the light of nature of offence, mitigating

circumstances and proportionality of punishment. There should be some

discretion. The Court disapproved automatic dismissal approach and held

that case must be evaluated on its facts and blanket mandate like Rule

16.2(2) of PPR must be interpreted harmoniously with constitutional

safeguards. The relevant extracts of the affidavit dated 17.07.2025 are

reproduced as below:-

CWP-14996-2025 -4-

“3. That the use of the word "shall" in Rule 16.2(2) has

been interpreted judicially to not denote absolute or

mandatory dismissal in all circumstances. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs Dharam

Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 550, has examined the rigid

interpretation of "shall be dismissed" and held that some

discretion must exist to consider the nature of offence,

mitigating circumstances, and proportionality of

punishment. The court emphasized Article 311(2) of the

Constitution, which protects civil servants from arbitrary

dismissal and insists on reasonable opportunity to be

heard. The Court disapproved the automatic dismissal

approach and held that each case must be evaluated on its

facts, and blanket mandates like Rule 16.2(2) must be

interpreted harmoniously with constitutional safeguards.

While upholding this discretion, Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as under:-

"A rule framed under Article 309 cannot

override the constitutional mandate under Article

311. Therefore, even if a rule provides for

mandatory dismissal upon conviction, the

disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the

facts and circumstances of each case before

imposing such penalty."

"The gravity of the offence, the conduct of the

official, the nature of the conviction, and the length

of sentence are relevant considerations. Dismissal

cannot follow as an automatic or mechanical

consequence of conviction."

Apart from above, this Hon'ble High Court in

various decisions has reiterated that proportionality,

fairness, and mitigating factors must guide the choice of

punishment under Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules,

1934.

4. That considering the above, in appropriate and

deserving cases, punishment of dismissal from service is

CWP-14996-2025 -5-

substituted with that of compulsory retirement in

consonance with the constitutional safeguards after

evaluating, inter alia, following factors:-

a. The nature and circumstances of conviction (e.g.

non-serious offences);

b. Length and quality of prior service;

c. Absence of moral turpitude or public outrage;

d. Consideration of parity with co-accused; and

e. Public interest.

5. That insofar as the case of Ex SI Gharsa Ram No.

437/H (Co-accused of the petitioner) is concerned it is

humbly submitted, based on the available records, that the

following mitigating factors were considered by the then

Home Secretary, Haryana at the time of taking decision of

substituting dismissal with compulsory retirement of Ex SI

Gharsa Ram No. 437/H:-

I. Ex SI Gharsa Ram No. 437/H had put in more than

37 years of service prior to the conviction and had a

clean service record. He also had attained the age

of about 57 years on the date of dismissal from

service. Thus, Superintendent of Police, Sirsa i.e

punishing authority had not considered the fact of

length of service while awarding the punishment of

dismissal.

II. His appeal assailing the order of conviction was

also pending at the time of dismissal.

In addition to the factors mentioned above,

the then Home Secretary might have also considered

other relevant aspects while deciding to modify the

punishment of Ex-SI Gharsa Ram No. 437/H (a co-

accused of the petitioner). Although the exact

reasons for substituting the dismissal order with

compulsory retirement, except the above, can't be

presumed/ assumed, the following possible

considerations might also have influenced the

decision:-

CWP-14996-2025 -6-

I. The petitioner and his co-accused were

implicated in an FIR under sections

302,323,342,167 and sec 34 of IPC. The

Trial Court vide judgement dated 26.10.2012

acquitted petitioner and co-accused from the

gravest charge u/s Section 302 and 34 of

IPC, and convicted under lesser offences

punishable under sec 323,342, 167 and 34 of

IPC.

II. The offence under which they were convicted

did not involve moral turpitude or

corruption.

III. Petitioner and other co-accused have filed

Criminal Appeal No. 3207-SB of 2012 in this

Hon'ble High Court which is still pending

and hence, order of conviction has not

attained the finality. Even when above

mentioned criminal appeal came up for

hearting on 21.11.2012, the Hon'ble High

Court suspended the sentence of

imprisonment imposed on the petitioner and

co-accused.”

7. In CWP No. 23420-2025, this Court noticing the fact that

police officers are filing mercy petition before State Government whereas

mercy petition is maintainable before revisionary authority as per Rule

16.32, vide order dated 19.08.2025 asked Home Secretary to clarify as to

whether mercy petition can be adjudicated under Rule 16.28 of PPR. The

order dated 19.08.2025 passed in CWP-23420-2025 reads as:

“CM-11768-CWP-2025

The applicant-petitioner through instant application

under Section 151 CPC is seeking permission to place on

record Mercy Appeals as well as order dated 10.02.2023

as Annexures P-6 to P-8.

CWP-14996-2025 -7-

Allowed as prayed for.

Mercy Appeals as well as order dated 10.02.2023

are taken on record as Annexures P-6 to P-8, subject to all

just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at an

appropriate place.

CWP- 23420 of 2025

1. The State counsel during the course of hearing

produced original file of Mercy Appeals filed by petitioner.

2. From the perusal of file as well as speaking orders,

it comes out that petitioner had filed Mercy Appeals and

respondent adjudicated the same. In a subsequent

communication, Home Department has averred that these

appeals were decided under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police

Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short

“PPR”).

3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of

Haryana is directed to file affidavit disclosing as to

whether Mercy Appeals could be adjudicated under Rule

16.28 of PPR especially when there was no averment in the

appeal to the effect that it is an application seeking review

of orders passed by authorities.

4. Scope of review is very limited. Only patent/manifest

illegality may be corrected. The orders of respondent seem

to be otherwise, thus, in the affidavit it would also be

disclosed whether in the name of review punishment order

can be set aside without pointing out illegalities in the

orders passed by Police Authorities including Director

General of Police.

5. Adjourned to 17.09.2025.

6. In the meantime, status quo be maintained.

7. Original record is returned to the State Counsel.”

8. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 passed in CWP

14996-2025 asked DGP to file his affidavit to the effect whether order of

dismissal from service is passed after adjudication of appeal/revision

CWP-14996-2025 -8-

against judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The order dated

19.08.2025 passed by this Court reads as:

“1. Affidavit of Dr. Sumita Misra, IAS, Additional Chief

Secretary to Government, Haryana, Home Department on

behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record. Registry is

directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

2. In the affidavit, respondent has justified its decision

to award punishment less than dismissal from service

despite conviction and sentence of more than one month

awarded by Criminal Court. The respondent has further

pointed out Rule 16.2 (2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as

applicable to State of Haryana) (in short “PPR”) to the

effect that punishment of dismissal from service can be

awarded to an enrolled Police Officer sentenced judicially

to rigorous imprisonment. The final departmental order in

such cases shall be postponed until the appeal or revision

proceedings have been decided or until the period for

filing appeal has lapsed without appellate or revisionary

proceedings having been instituted.

From the said averment, it appears that Home Department

is of the opinion that despite sentence awarded by criminal

Court, the order of dismissal from service should be passed

after adjudication of appeal or revision.

3. This Court has come across many cases where

officers are dismissed from service as soon as either FIR is

registered or sentence is awarded by Criminal Court. The

stand of Home Department seems to be contrary to orders

passed by Police Department.

4. Let an affidavit of Director General of Police be

filed before the adjourned date to the effect whether order

of dismissal from service would be passed after

adjudication of appeal/revision where Police Officer has

been implicated in a criminal case and awarded sentence

of imprisonment.

5. In the affidavit, the Home Department has further

CWP-14996-2025 -9-

formed an opinion that despite sentence of more than one

month, the Department may award punishment other than

dismissal from service.

6. Let affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary, Home

Department, Government of Haryana and Director

General of Police, Haryana be filed disclosing that how

many police officials during the last three years despite

conviction have been awarded punishment other than

dismissal from service.

7. Adjourned to 17.09.2025.”

9. The Home Secretary filed her affidavit dated 04.09.2025 in

CWP-23420-2025 clarifying that police officers are unaware of correct

rule, thus, they file mercy petitions which are adjudicated under rule

16.28 as State Government has power to review orders of DGP under said

rule. Relevant extracts of the affidavit read as:

“5. That a plain reading of the above statutory

provision would show that the State Government has been

conferred the power:-

 to call for the records

 to review the award

 to confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same.

6. That the deponent joined the office of Additional

Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana Home

Department on 02.12.2024 and as per record, it has been

revealed that the mercy appeals/petitions/representations

of police officials have been entertained by the State

Government against the orders passed by the Director

General of Police, Haryana under the above said provision

since decades. There are also many instances, where after

submission of mercy appeals/petitions/representations, the

police officials approached this Hon'ble Court seeking

directions to the State Government to decide their

CWP-14996-2025 -10-

appeals/petitions/representations and directions were

issued by this Hon'ble Court to the State Government from

time to time to consider and decide the mercy

appeals/petitions/representations in a time bound manner.

In compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the

mercy appeals/petitions/representations were considered

and decided by the Government.

7. That in the aforesaid background, it is submitted

that from the record of the department, it has also been

revealed that in most of the cases, the mercy

appeals/petitions/representations are filed by the police

officials without mentioning the averment to the effect that

these appeals/petitions seek review of orders passed by the

authorities. In most of the cases, mercy

appeals/petitions/representations are filed by the police

officials aggrieved with the decisions of the Director

General of Police, Haryana, without any assistance of

Legal Practitioner, who might not aware about making

specific averment to seek review of orders passed by

authorities. The mercy appeals/petitions/representations of

the police officials had been and are being adjudicated

under the enabling provision of rule 16.28 of PPR in view

of fact that technicalities should not come in the way to

address the grievance of manifest error/injustice caused

such police officials.”

10. The DGP filed his affidavit dated 16.09.2025 and Home

Secretary filed her affidavit dated 15.09.2025. Stand of DGP seems to be

contrary to stand of Home Department. DGP has deposed that authorities

are bound to dismiss an enrolled officer who is sentenced judicially to

rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment

not less severe. In case of punishment of fine or simple imprisonment or

rigorous imprisonment not exceeding one month, an enrolled police

CWP-14996-2025 -11-

officer may be awarded punishment less than dismissal from service.

There is discretion with the authorities. With respect to stage of

punishment, it has been deposed that Full Bench of Delhi High Court in

‘Sukhbir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors.’, W.P.(C)

1956/2013 dated 06.01.2014 has held that expression ‘provided that no

such order shall be passed till such time the result of the first appeal that

may have been filed by such police officer is known’ has to be read as

directory. As per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Deputy

Director of Collegiate Education Vs. S. Nagoor Meera’, 1995 AIR SC

1364 and ‘Union of India and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar’, 1997 AIR

SC 3531, order of dismissal from service cannot be set aside on the

ground that sentence has been suspended by Appellate Court and if

delinquent succeeds in appeal or other proceedings, the matter can always

be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice. Relevant

extracts of the affidavit of the DGP read as :-

“3. That it is submitted that there are two provisions in

the above rule for taking decision on punishment of

dismissal of the Police Officer by the competent authority

after the conviction, firstly, the authorities are bound to

dismiss an enrolled Police Officer, if he is sentenced

judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month

or to any other punishment not less severe.

Secondly, an enrolled Police Officer sentenced by a

criminal court to a punishment of fine or simple

imprisonment, or both, or to rigorous imprisonment not

exceeding one month, or who, having been proclaimed

under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails

to appear within the statutory period of 30 days may be

dismissed or otherwise dealt with at the discretion of the

CWP-14996-2025 -12-

officer empowered to appoint him. Hence, the authorities

can use discretion and can inflict any punishment other

than dismissal considering act and conduct of the Police

Officer.”

11. Home Secretary in her affidavit dated 15.09.2025 has

deposed that in last three years there is no case in which police officer has

been awarded punishment other than dismissal from service after

conviction.

Contention of the petitioner(s)

12. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate submits that appeal is

maintainable against order of dismissal or reduction or stoppage of

increment or forfeiture of approved service. Appeal is not maintainable

against other orders of punishment e.g. minor punishment of censure. In

case of disciplinary proceedings against Inspector culminating in

punishment, the aggrieved officer has right to file appeal which at present

is maintainable before DGP. At present, DGP is Head of the Department

and at the time of introduction of Punjab Police Rules, Inspector General

of Police (for short ‘IGP’) used to be head of the department. Revision

under Rule 16.32 PPR is maintainable before the authority higher than

Appellate Authority. In case appellate order is passed by IGP, revision is

maintainable before DGP and if appellate order is passed by DGP,

revision is maintainable before State Government. Rule 16.32 of PPR

permits Appellate Authority to review its order provided appeal has been

heard by IGP. In the present scenario, it would be applicable where appeal

has been heard by DGP. Rule 16.32 itself provides that this rule does not

affect provisions of Rule 16.28, thus, orders passed by

CWP-14996-2025 -13-

Appellate/Revisionary Authority can be reviewed by an authority higher

than Appellate/Revisionary Authority.

13. On being asked, Mr. Yadav submits that despite expression

“awards” used in Rule 16.28 of PPR, power of review can be exercised

against appellate or revisionary order. Appellate or revisionary order is

confirmation/modification of award, thus, review is maintainable against

appellate or revisionary order. In case, award is not passed by the

Disciplinary Authority, review is not maintainable. The disciplinary

authority may opt to drop departmental proceedings. In such a situation,

no review is maintainable.

14. Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate submits that co-accused have

been awarded punishment other than dismissal from service, thus, on the

ground of parity despite conviction by Criminal Court, petitioner deserves

to be awarded punishment other than dismissal from service. The Home

Secretary in her reply has confirmed that in peculiar circumstances lesser

punishment may be awarded. Dismissal is not automatic. There is no

application of mind on the part of authorities.

Contention of the State:

15. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G, Haryana

and Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submit that power

of review under Rule 16.28 of PPR can be exercised against awards. The

expression ‘awards’ should be interpreted in the manner it has been used

in Rule 16.28 of PPR. If appellate or revisionary orders are also included

in the expression ‘awards’, intent of Legislature specifically using

expression ‘awards’ would be defeated. Appellate or revisionary order

CWP-14996-2025 -14-

cannot be reviewed under Rule 16.28 of PPR. As per Rule 16.32 of PPR,

if Appellate Authority is IGP (at present DGP), it can review its order.

Rule 16.32 makes it clear that it is only Appellate Authority which can

review its order. The orders passed by Appellate Authority cannot be

subjected to review by any higher authority. Power under Rule 16.28

should be restricted to awards passed by original authority.

With respect to punishment other than dismissal from

service, in case of conviction, learned State counsel submits that DGP in

his affidavit has made it clear that as per Rule 16.2(2) of PPR if an officer

is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than one month, no

discretion lies with authorities to grant punishment other than dismissal

from service. The discretionary power can be exercised if punishment

awarded is simple imprisonment or awarded punishment despite being

rigorous is up to one month.

16. From the arguments of both sides and perusal of record,

following questions arise for the consideration of this Court:

i. Whether respondent can award punishment other than

dismissal from service where an enrolled Police officer has

been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one

month?

ii. Whether review under Rule 16.28 of PPR is maintainable

against appellate or revisionary orders?

iii. Whether reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 of PPR has

power to remand the matter back to subordinate authority?

CWP-14996-2025 -15-

17. Matter relates to scope and ambit of Rule 16.2, 16.28, 16.30,

16.32 of PPR, thus, it would be relevant to examine nature, colour and

contour of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

17.1 A five judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pankajakshi v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157 adverted to issue of effect

of Section 100 of CPC over Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (for

short ‘1918 Act’). The Court overruling its two Judge judgment in

Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, (2001) 4 SCC 262 held that 1918

Act is an ‘existing law’ and it did not cease to exist as per Article 395 of

Constitution of India. Article 254 is inapplicable to the extent of

inconsistency between Section 100 of CPC and Section 41 of 1918 Act.

Article 372 is applicable to 1918 Act.

Article 309 of the Constitution of India permits Union as well as

State Legislature to make appropriate legislation to regulate recruitment

and conditions of service of their employees. Proviso to Article 309

provides that it shall be competent for the President in case of posts

connected with affairs of Union and Governor in case of posts connected

with affairs of State to make rules regulating the recruitment and

conditions of service. The Rules made by President or Governor hold the

field till provisions are made by appropriate legislature. The Punjab

Police Rules were made prior to enforcement of the Constitution of India.

As per Article 366 (10) of the Constitution of India, these are ‘existing

law’. Article 366 (10) is reproduced as below:

“existing law" means any law, Ordinance, order, bye-law,

rule or regulation passed or made before the

commencement of this Constitution by any Legislature,

CWP-14996-2025 -16-

authority or person having power to make such a law,

Ordinance, order, byelaw, rule or regulation.”

The PPR came into force prior to commencement of

Constitution, thus, fall within definition of ‘existing law’ under Article

366(10). Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (supra) is

equally applicable to PPR as applicable to Punjab Courts Act. These

Rules can be amended by State Legislature and in case of repugnancy

with Central Legislation, shall have overriding effect.

18. From the perusal of record, it comes out that service of

petitioner is governed by Haryana Police Act, 2007 (for short ‘Police

Act’) and Rules made thereunder. The State Government made Haryana

Police (Non-Gazetted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017 (for short

‘2017 Rules’) which came into force w.e.f. 08.05.2017. 2017 Rules are

inapplicable to the petitioner because he was directly recruited on

01.10.1985 i.e. before publication of the Rules and might have passed

Lower School Course before publication of 2017 Rules. As per Rule 21 of

2017 Rules and Section 96 of Police Act, his service is governed by PPR.

19. Section 96 of Police Act provides that PPR shall be deemed

to have been framed under this Act till new Rules are framed. The State

Government has framed 2017 Rules under Police Act. Section 92 of the

Police Act empowers State Government to make Rules for carrying out

purposes of the Act. Thus, State Government can make any Rule for

carrying out purposes of the Act.

20. Chapter XVI of PPR provides for punishments. Rule 16.1 of

PPR prescribes departmental punishments which may be inflicted on

CWP-14996-2025 -17-

officers and the authorities which may pass award of punishment. Rule

16.1 for the ready reference is reproduced as below:-

“16.1. Authorised punishments.- (1) No police officer

shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as

provided in these rules.

(2) The departmental punishments mentioned in the second

column of the subjoined table may be inflicted on officers

of the various ranks shown in the heading Nos. 3 to 6, by

the officers named below each heading in each case, or by

any officer of higher rank:

1 2 3 4 5 6

Sr.

no.

Departmental

punishment

Inspectors Sergeants, Sub-

Inspectors and

Assistant Sub-

Inspectors

Head

Constable

Constables

1 Dismissal Deputy

Inspectors

General

Superinte

ndent of

Police

Railway,

the

Assistant

Inspector-

General,

Provincial

Additional

Police

designate

d as

Command

ant,

Provincial

Additional

Police,

and the

Assistant

Inspector-

General

of Police

(Traffic)

Superintendents

of Police and

Superintendent

of Police,

Railways

Superintende

nts of Police,

Commandan

ts of Punjab

Armed

Police and

Deputy

Superintende

nt,

(Administrati

ve),

Government

Railway

Police,

Assistant

Superintende

nt,

Government

Railway

Police,

Superintende

nts-in-charge

Deputy of

Railway

Police Sub

divisions

senior

Assistant

Superintende

nt of Police,

Lahore &

Officers

incharge,

Superintendents of

Police,

Superintendent of

Police, Railways

Deputy

Superintendents in-

charge of Railways

Police Sub-

Divisions; Senior

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police, Lahore;

Officer-in-charge of

Recruits Training

Centres, Deputy

Superintendent of

Police, Lahaul and

spiti.

CWP-14996-2025 -18-

Recruits

training

Centres,

Deputy

Superintende

nt of Police

Lahaul and

Spiti

District,

Assistant

Superintende

nt of Police,

Lahaul and

Spiti

District,

District

magistrate,

Lahaul and

Spiti.

2 Reduction in

rank

Superinte

ndent of

Police

Railway;

Superinte

ndent of

Police;

Assistant

Inspector-

General

of Police

(Traffic)

Superintendent

of Police, Also

Superintendent

of Police

Railways and

(as regard Sub-

Inspectors and

Assistant Sub-

Inspectors

only), Deputy

Superintendent

in- charge of

Railway Police

Sub-Division

and Officer-in-

charge of the

Police Recruits

Training

Centres,

Amritsar.

Superintende

nt of Police,

Also senior

Assistant

Superintende

nt of Police,

Lahore

Superintende

nt of Police

Railways

Deputy

Superintende

nt in charge

of Railway

Police Sub-

Division and

Officer-in-

charge of the

Police

Recruits

Training

Centre,

Amritsar.

Superintendent of

Police;

Superintendent of

Police, Railways

Deputy

Superintendents-in-

charge of Railway

Police Sub-

Divisions, Senior

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police, Lahore;

Officers-in-charge

of Recruits Training

Centres.

3 Stoppage of

increment

Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto

4 Entry of

censure

Superinte

ndent of

Police

and

Superinte

ndent of

Police,

Railways

Superintendent

of Police

Superintendent

of Police

Railways and

(as regard Sub-

Inspectors and

only) Deputy

Superintendents

in- charge of

Railway Police

Superintende

nt of Police

also Senior

Assistant

Superintende

nt of Police,

Lahore

Superintende

nt of Police

Railways

Deputy

Superintendent of

Police, also Senior

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police Lahore,

Superintendent of

Police, Railways

Deputy

Superintendent-in-

charge of Railway

Police Sub-Division

CWP-14996-2025 -19-

Sub Division

and Officer in-

charge of the

Police Recruits

Training

Centre,

Amritsar.

Superintende

nt-in-charge

of the Police

Recruits

Training

Centre,

Amritsar.

and Officer-in-

charge of the Police

Recruits Training

Centre, Amritsar,

and subject to

confirmation by the

Superintendent of

Police, any

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police or Deputy of

Superintendent

Police, of over three

years' gazetted

service and officer-

in-charge of the

Constables Training

Centre

5 Confinement

to quarters for

a exceeding

15 days

Superintendent

Police, also Senior

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police Lahore

Superintendent of

Police, Railway

Deputy

Superintendent-in-

charge of Railway

Police Sub-Division

and Officer-in-

charge of the Police

Recruits Training

Centre, Amritsar,

and subject to

confirmation by the

Superintendent of

Police, any

Assistant

Superintendent of

Police and Deputy

Superintendent of

Police of over three

years' gazetted

service.

6 Extra guard,

fatigue or

other duty

Ditto

7 Punishment

drill not

exceeding 15

days

Ditto

8 Punishment

drill not

exceeding 10

days

Assistant and

Deputy

Superintendent

CWP-14996-2025 -20-

9 Punishment

drill not

exceeding 6

days

Inspectors

10 Punishment

drill not

exceeding 3

days

Sub-Inspector

A Deputy Inspector-General may prohibit by special order

a Superintendent officiating in a vacancy of less than six

months' duration from carrying out an award made by him

of dismissal, reduction, stoppage of increment, or forfeiture

of approved service for increment unless and until such

award has been con-firmed by him.

The Superintendent of Police, Railways] or in charge of

Railway Police Sub-Divisions and Officer-in-charge,

Constables Advanced Training Centre, shall exercise the

full disciplinary powers of a Superintendent of Police in

respect of the provisions of this Chapter, within the limits

prescribes in the above table: Provided that in the case of

a Government servant already appointed the publishment

of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or stoppage of

increment shall be imposed by the Authority who appointed

him

(3) For the purposes of these rules, the term 'major

punishment shall mean the stoppage of increment,

reduction in rank and dismissal and the term 'minor

punishment' shall mean all other authorized punishments.”

[Emphasis supplied]

21. A perusal of above-quoted Rule reveals that dismissal,

reduction in rank, stoppage of increment are major punishments and entry

of censure, confinement to quarters, extra fatigue, punishment drill etc.

are minor punishments. In case of Inspectors, Disciplinary Authority to

award punishment of dismissal from service is Deputy Inspector General

and in case of other officers it is Superintendent of Police (for short ‘SP’).

CWP-14996-2025 -21-

Question No.1 - Whether respondent can award punishment other

than dismissal from service where an enrolled Police officer has been

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month?

22. Rule 16.2 of PPR provides for punishment of dismissal from

service. It provides that dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest

acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect or continued misconduct is

proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police services. State

of Haryana has amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2. As per Rule 16.2(2),

as applicable to State of Punjab, an enrolled police officer is liable to be

dismissed if his conduct leads to his conviction on a criminal charge. As

per proviso to said Rule, punishing authority in an exceptional case

involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be

recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority may

impose any punishment other than dismissal. The State of Haryana has

made a totally different sub-rule (2) of 16.2. As per sub-rule (2), an

enrolled Police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment

exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe is liable

to be dismissed. No discretion is left with authority. Rule 16.2 of PPR (as

applicable to State of Haryana) is reproduced as below:-

“ 16.2. Dismissal. (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for

the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect

or continued misconduct proving Incorrigibility and

complete unfitness for police service. In making such an

award regard shall be had to the length of service of the

offender and his claim to pension.

Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the

following shall, inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of

CWP-14996-2025 -22-

misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing

disciplinary action:

(i) indulging in spying or smuggling activities;

(ii) disrupting the means of transport or of

communication;

(iii) damaging public property;

(iv) causing indiscipline amongst fellow policemen;

(v) promoting feeling of enmity or hatred between

different classes of citizens of India on grounds of

religion, race, caste, community or language;

(vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to

mass abstentions;

(vii) spreading disaffection against the Government; and

(viii) causing riots and the like.

(2) An enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to

rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any

other punishment not less severe, shall, if such sentence is

not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed. An

enrolled police officer sentenced by a criminal court to a

punishment of fine or simple imprisonment, or both, or to

rigorous imprisonment not exceeding one month, or who,

having been proclaimed under Section 87 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure fails to appear within the statutory

period of thirty days may be dismissed or otherwise dealt

with at the discretion of the officer empowered to appoint

him. Final departmental orders in such cases shall be

postponed until the appeal or revision proceedings have

been decided, or until the period allowed for filing an

appeal has lapsed without appellate or revisionary

proceedings having been instituted. Departmental

punishments under this rule shall be awarded in

accordance with the powers conferred by rule 16/1.

(3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and

dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental

inquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the

conviction and dismissal and its cause shall be published

CWP-14996-2025 -23-

in the Police Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is

desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-

employed elsewhere, a full description roll, with

particulars of the punishments, shall be sent for

publication in the Police Gazette.”

[Emphasis supplied]

23. For the convenience and better understanding of difference

between sub-rule (2) applicable to State of Haryana and State of Punjab,

both are reproduced in juxtaposition as below:

State of Haryana State of Punjab

(2) An enrolled police officer sentenced

judicially to rigorous imprisonment

exceeding one month or to any other

punishment not less severe, shall, if such

sentence is not quashed on appeal or

revision, be dismissed. An enrolled police

officer sentenced by a criminal court to a

punishment of fine or simple

imprisonment, or both, or to rigorous

imprisonment not exceeding one month,

or who, having been proclaimed under

Section 87 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure fails to appear within the

statutory period of thirty days may be

dismissed or otherwise dealt with at the

discretion of the officer empowered to

appoint him. Final departmental orders in

such cases shall be postponed until the

appeal or revision proceedings have been

decided, or until the period allowed for

filing an appeal has lapsed without

appellate or revisionary proceedings

having been instituted. Departmental

punishments under this rule shall be

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled

police officer leads to his

conviction on a criminal charge

and he is sentenced to

imprisonment, he shall be

dismissed:

Provided that a punishing

authority may, in an

exceptional case involving

manifestly extenuating

circumstances for reasons to be

recorded and with the prior

approval of the next higher

authority impose any

punishment other than that of

dismissal:

Provided further that in case

the conviction of an enrolled

police officer is set aside in

appeal or revision, the officer

empowered to appoint him shall

review his case keeping view

the instructions issued by the

CWP-14996-2025 -24-

awarded in accordance with the powers

conferred by rule 16/1.

Government from time to time

in this behalf.

24. It is well known fact that Legislature on account of paucity

of time and to tackle situations arising on account of changed

circumstances delegates its power to executive to implement its policy by

way of Rules. The Legislature by enactment declares its policy and rules

are framed within the framework of said policy. The State of Haryana by

amending sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.2 has given its imprimatur. Time and

again Courts have held that punishment of dismissal from service cannot

be awarded mechanically. Every conviction and order of sentence should

not lead to dismissal from service e.g. if an employee is held guilty for

traffic violation, raising slogan against the management or any other

trivial offence and further sentenced to minor punishment of fine or

simple imprisonment or both, he cannot be treated at par with a person

who is held guilty for a major offence and sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment. The State of Punjab as well as Haryana has issued

circulars/clarifications whereby many offences have been categorised as

offences involving moral turpitude. Implementing judgments of Hon’ble

Supreme Court and to avoid confusion as well as maintain uniformity, the

State of Haryana by way of sub-rule (2) has clarified its stand with

respect to status of an employee who has been sentenced to imprisonment

by criminal court. 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. The

Disciplinary Authority would apply its mind and decide quantum of

CWP-14996-2025 -25-

punishment. 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. Rigorous imprisonment of more than one month

ordinarily means the accused has committed some serious offence. It is

well known that getting FIR registered and particularly against an

enrolled police officer is an arduous task. Percentage of conviction in

India is also very low. In such circumstances, conviction of a police

officer and thereafter sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one

month means some serious offence on the part of an officer.

25. The Home Secretary in her affidavit has attempted to justify

its decision to convert punishment of dismissal from service into

compulsory retirement where an officer has been sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment exceeding one month. As per Home Secretary, despite

categoric and lucid policy of the State, the Home Department can award

lesser punishment than mandatorily prescribed in the PPR.

26. The DGP in his affidavit has deposed that authorities carry

no discretion to award punishment other than dismissal from service

where an enrolled police officer has been sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment exceeding one month. Stand of DGP seems to be in

consonance with mandate of Rule 16.2(2) of PPR. The authorities are

bound to act as per mandate of Rules. The authorities can exercise

discretion in case of directory provision whereas in case of mandatory

provision, the authorities cannot exercise discretion. First part of Rule

16.2(2) is mandatory, thus, authorities carry no discretion.

CWP-14996-2025 -26-

Question No.2 - Whether review under Rule 16.28 of PPR is

maintainable against appellate or revisionary orders?

27. Rules 16.2, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7 and 16.8 deal with

different kinds of punishment which may be awarded by disciplinary

authority. Rule 16.24 prescribes procedure for departmental enquiry.

Rule 16.25 provides that standard of proof in departmental proceedings is

satisfaction of the officer that charge is established.

28. Rule 16.28 provides for review. It empowers IGP and other

officers to review awards passed by their subordinates. They may call for

the records of awards. They may annul, modify, confirm or enhance

awards. They may conduct investigation before passing award. The State

of Punjab vide notification dated 15.03.1966 amended Rule 16.28. By

said amendment, State Government got power to review awards passed

by IGP or any officer subordinate to him. Rule 16.28 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.

CWP-14996-2025 -27-

(3) In all cases in which officers propose 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.”

Note: - The underlined portion was added by

notification dated 15.03.1966.

29. PPR came into force pre-Constitution of India. During

British era, IGP was head of the Police force of any province. The State

of Haryana like other States has made Director General of Police as Head

of Police Force. Police Act, 1861 has been repealed and Haryana Police

Act, 2007 has been brought into force w.e.f. 01.11.2008 vide notification

dated 10.10.2008. As per Police Act, the State Government for overall

direction and supervision of the police service appoints DGP. IGP is no

more head of the department. The State Government has not made

requisite amendments in the PPR. On account of introduction of Police

Act and appointing DGP as head of police force, incongruity has crept in

the Rules. As per situation prevailing prior to appointment of DGP as

head of the department, appeal under Rule 16.29 could be filed before

Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short ‘DIG’) or IGP. Against

order of SP, appeal was maintainable before DIG and against order of

DIG appeal was maintainable before IGP. It would be apt to mention

here that appeal against DSP, Government Railway Police was

maintainable before AIG, GRP. Rules 16.29 and 16.30 provide for appeal

and these rules read as:

“16.29. Right of appeal.- (1) Appeals shall lie only against

orders of dismissal or reduction or stoppage of increment or

CWP-14996-2025 -28-

forfeiture of approved service for increment.

(2) There shall be one appeal only from the original order,

and the order of the appellate authority shall be final.

(3) A copy of the original order appealable shall be supplied

to the person concerned free of cost.

(4) Any persons wishing to appeal under sub-rule (1) may

apply to the Superintendent for a copy of the complete record,

or any portion thereof. Such copies shall not be given during

the pendency of the original proceedings for the facilitating of

cross-examination or the preparation of the defence. Copies of

the record of preliminary enquiries (rule 16.24 (viii)) shall not

be given for purposes of appeal.

Such application shall bear a court-fee stamp of the value

of two annas, unless the applicant is in Jail, and shall be

accompanied by a deposit of the copying fees chargeable

under the scale in force in the civil courts of the district.

(5) The copy of such record shall be given with as little delay

as possible, and the Superintendent shall certify to its

correctness and to the date on which it was given to the

applicant.

(6) The appellate authority in cases of reduction and dismissal

is as indicated in the following table –

Officer by whom original order of

punishment is framed

Appellate authority

Deputy Superintendent

(Administrative), Government

Railway Police, Deputy

Superintendent, in charge of Railway

Police Sub-Division.

Assistant Inspector-General

Government Railway Police

Superintendent of Police, Senior

Assistant Superintendent of Police,

Lahore, Officer-in-Charge of

Recruits Training Centre,

Superintendent of Police, Armed

Deputy Punjab Deputy

Inspector-General of Police

and Assistant Inspector-

General, Police Provincial

Additional (designated as

CWP-14996-2025 -29-

Police, Lahaul and Spiti. Commandant Provincial

Additional Police)

Deputy Inspector-General of Police,

Assistant Provincial Inspector-

General Government Railway

Police, Assistant Inspector-General,

Additional Police (designated as

Commandant. Provincial Additional

Police), Assistant Inspector-General

of Police (Traffic)

Inspector General of Police

(7) Appeals against reduction shall be presented through the

Superintendent of Police of the district in which the appellant

is serving; but in the case of officers serving directly under a

Deputy Inspector-General of Police appeals shall be

forwarded through such Deputy Inspector-General of Police.

Appeals against dismissal shall be forwarded direct to the

appellate authority.

16.30. Rules regarding appeals.- (1) Every appeal to the

Deputy Inspector-General or Inspector-General shall be in

English. It shall set forth the grounds of appeal, and shall be

accompanied by a copy of the order made in the case.

(2) An appeal which is not filed within a month of the date of

the original order, exclusive of the time taken to obtain a copy

of the order or record, shall be barred by limitation. The

appellate authority may, however accept an appeal filed out of

time, if he sees fit to do so.”

30. As per Rule 16.32, an officer may file revision against

appellate orders to an authority next above the appellate authority on the

ground of (i) material irregularity in the proceedings or (ii) on production

of fresh evidence or (iii) plea of mercy. No application for revision was

maintainable against orders of IGP. If appeal is heard by IGP, the officer

may submit plea for mercy or apply for review to IGP on the ground that

CWP-14996-2025 -30-

fresh evidence has become available since the appellate order has been

pronounced. Rule 16.32 of PPR reads as:

“16.32 Revision.- An officer whose appeal has been

rejected is prohibited from applying for a fresh scrutiny of

the evidence. Such officer may, however, apply within a

month of the date of dispatch of appellate orders to him, to

the authority next above the prescribed appellate authority

for revision on grounds of material irregularity in the

proceedings or on production of fresh evidence, and may

submit to the same authority a plea for mercy: provided

that no application for the revision of an order by the

Inspector-General will be entertained. An officer whose

appeal has been heard by the Inspector General may

however, submit to the Inspector-General a plea for mercy

or may apply to the Inspector-General for a review of his

appellate order only on the ground that fresh evidence has

become available since the appellate order has been

pronounced. This rule does not affect the provisions of rule

16.28. Such application or plea must be in English.”

The above reproduced provision is borrowed from book

published by ‘Singla Law Agency’ and ‘The Bright Law House’.

The State Government has placed on record notifi cation

dated 15.03.1966 which shows that Rule 16.32 was substituted and

substituted Rule reads as: -

“16.32 Revision.- An officer whose appeal has been

rejected is prohibited from applying for a fresh scrutiny of

the evidence. Such officer may, however, apply within a

month of the date of dispatch of appellate orders to him, to

the authority next above the prescribed appellate authority

for revision on grounds of material irregularity in the

proceedings or on production of fresh evidence, and may

submit to the same authority a plea for mercy. An officer

CWP-14996-2025 -31-

whose appeal has been heard by the Inspector General of

Police may submit to him a plea for mercy or may apply to

the Inspector General of Police for a review of his

appellate order only on the ground that fresh evidence has

become available since the appellate order has been

pronounced. This rule does not affect the provisions of rule

16.28. Such application or plea must be in English.”

31. As per present dispensation, appeal against orders of SP is

maintainable before IGP and revision against order of appellate authority

(IGP) is maintainable before DGP. As per Rule 16.1 of PPR, punishing

authority of officers other than Inspectors is SP. In case of Inspectors,

punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded by DIG. For the

reasons stated heretofore, 2017 Rules are not applicable to instant case,

however, cue may be taken from Rule 15 and Appendix C. As per

Appendix C, punishing/appointing authority of Inspector is IGP and for

all other officers is SP. Appeal against order of IGP lies before DGP and

revision before Government. At present in the State of Haryana, orders of

SP by way of appeal are assailed before IGP and revision is filed before

DGP. In case of Inspectors, appeal is filed before DGP and revision

before Government.

32. In view of Rule 16.34 of PPR, IGP (now DGP) may review

an order which he had passed acting as appellate authority. There is no

provision of second appeal. Revision is maintainable on limited grounds

and that too within prescribed period. As per 2017 Rules, revision against

order of DGP is maintainable before State Government.

33. As per affidavit of Home Secretary, Home Department has

power to review orders passed by any police officer including DGP. The

CWP-14996-2025 -32-

order may be appellate or revisionary. Same is opinion of learned counsel

for the petitioners, however, during the course of hearing, learned State

Counsel and Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG Punjab who on the asking of Court

appeared and made his submissions, submitted that power of review is

not maintainable against appellate and revisionary orders.

34. A conspectus of Rule 16.28 of PPR reveals that review is

maintainable against awards. Any higher authority may call for the record

of awards made by his subordinate. The reviewing authority may

confirm, enhance, modify or annul the award. The reviewing authority

may make further investigation or direct to be made before passing

orders. The expression ‘award’ has not been defined under the Act or

Rules made thereunder. The said expression has been used below the

table of Rule 16.1(2) of PPR. It provides that awards of dismissal,

reduction, stoppage of increments or forfeiture of approved service for

increment, made by Superintendent officiating in a vacancy of less than

six months duration, may be prohibited to be carried out until confirmed

by DIG. As per 16.28 of PPR, review is maintainable against awards.

This Court on account of below mentioned reasons is of the opinion that

power of review cannot be exercised against appellate or revisionary

orders:

i. Power of review is suo motu. Rule does not provide for

review on the application of aggrieved party. There are

many enactments where power of review/revision can be

exercised on the request of aggrieved party besides suo

motu. Rule 16.28 provides only for suo motu review. There

CWP-14996-2025 -33-

is reason for vesting senior officers with the power of

review. There is always possibility that on account of one

or another reason disciplinary authority may pass award

contrary to facts or law. The said order may necessarily

require to be modified. The aggrieved officer may prefer an

appeal and thereafter revision, however, State has no right

to file appeal or revision. State cannot be left remediless.

To overcome that situation, the Legislature has empowered

every senior officer to review awards made by his

subordinates. Normally, power of review is exercised by

same authority whereas Rule 16.28 empowers higher

officer to review order of subordinate. In the common

judicial parlance, use of expression ‘review’ in Rule 16.28

seems to be a misnomer.

ii. In Rule 16.28 expression ‘awards’ has been used. The

Legislature has not used expression ‘any order or decision’

made by subordinates. The expression ‘awards’ must be

given due weightage and full effect. It should be read in

the light of attending and surrounding circumstances. If

expression ‘awards’ is declared to include appellate or

revisionary orders, it would amount to re-writing the

provision which is impermissible.

iii. Under Rule 16.32 of PPR, power of revision is prescribed.

Revision is maintainable against appellate orders before an

officer next above the appellate authority. Though as per

CWP-14996-2025 -34-

marginal note, Rule 16.32 provides for revision, however, it

also provides for review of appellate order by appellate

authority itself. It makes it clear that power of review in

case of appellate order can be exercised by appellate

authority itself and not any other higher authority. If it is

held that order of appellate authority can be reviewed by

authority itself as well as higher authority, there would be

disharmony and chaos. As per Rules 16.28 to 16.32, highest

authority is IGP. He has power to review orders of his

subordinate under rule 16.28 and own appellate orders

under rule 16.32. To avoid confusion of powers of IGP to

review orders, in the rule 16.32 it has been clarified that it

would not affect provisions of Rule 16.28.

iv. As per Rule 16.29(2) there shall be only one appeal against

original order and order of appellate authority shall be

final. If it is held that order of appellate authority can be

reviewed by any senior officer, it would make sub-rule (2)

of 16.29 redundant. It is settled proposition of law that no

provision can be interpreted in such a manner that any

other provision of the statute is made redundant/otiose.

v. Rule 16.28 is placed prior to Rule 16.29 & 16.32 means

power of review is prescribed prior to provision of appeal

and revision. There is no hard and fast rule that a particular

provision should be at a particular place, however, in the

instant case this fact needs to be taken care of. Had

CWP-14996-2025 -35-

intention of the Legislature been to empower higher officer

to review appellate and revisionary orders, Rule 16.28 must

have been placed after Rules providing for appeal and

revision.

vi. Rule 16.28 empowers reviewing authority to make further

investigation. He himself can make investigation or direct

to be made. It would amount to putting the cart before the

horse if investigation is conducted after adjudication of

revision by head of the department i.e. DGP. The

investigation by higher officer may be conducted at the

initial stage. In the legal jurisprudence, scope of review is

very limited. Rule 16.28 endows reviewing authority with

such powers which are not even vested in appellate and

revisionary authority. The appellate authority can entertain

appeal against order of dismissal, reduction in rank or

stoppage of increments whereas power of review can be

exercised against any award. Revision is maintainable only

on three grounds i.e. (i) material irregularity in the

proceedings or (ii) on production of fresh evidence or (iii)

plea of mercy. There is no such limitation under Rule

16.28. Revision under rule 16.32 can be filed within one

month from the date of receipt of copy of appellate order

whereas there is no limitation period for review.

vii. As per Rule 16.32, the appellate authority may review its

order if fresh evidence has become available after passing

CWP-14996-2025 -36-

of appellate order. It means appellate authority cannot

review its order based on evidence which were available at

the time of passing order or any other ground. As per Rule

16.28, the higher authority is empowered to review order

on any ground. There is no limitation. It shows that

intention of Legislature was to empower higher authorities

to undo any mistake committed by punishing authority.

The State has no remedy to file appeal/revision, thus,

power of suo motu review is vested in higher authorities.

viii. The power of review may be exercised by any officer with

respect to award made by his subordinate. If a delinquent

files an appeal before DIG against order of SP, he has right

to file revision against order of DIG before IGP as per

original scheme. As per present dispensation, he can file

appeal before IGP and revision before DGP. If contention

of petitioners is accepted, an officer may choose to file

review against appellate order instead of revision. Scope of

review is unlimited whereas revision is maintainable on

very limited issues. Thus, if the officer would file revision

before DGP, scope of interference would be very limited

whereas if review is filed, scope would be unlimited. An

authority which cannot conduct fresh investigation while

acting as appellate or revisionary authority would be free to

conduct or get conducted fresh investigation.

CWP-14996-2025 -37-

ix. As per original Rule 16.32, no revision was maintainable

against an order of IGP. By notification dated 15.03.1966,

Rule 16.32 has been amended and as per amended

provision, the restriction of revision against order of IGP

has been withdrawn. The simple reason is that sometimes

IGP (now DGP) acts as an appellate authority and in that

situation, there would be only remedy of review before

IGP. By amendment, the legislature granted opportunity to

file revision before State Government. This amendment

further makes it clear that State Government can act as

revisionary authority against orders of IGP/DGP, however,

cannot act as reviewing authority. This fact is further

supported with 2017 Rules which clearly provide that

revision would lie before State Government where DGP

acts as an appellate authority e.g. appellate authority of

Inspector is DGP and revision lies before State

Government.

x. As per amended Rule 16.28, the State Government has got

power to review awards of IGP and officers subordinate to

him. At the time of amendment of Rule 16.28, IGP was

head of the Police Force. He may act as disciplinary

authority because Rule 16.1(2) provides that order of

punishment may be passed by the officers mentioned in the

Table or by any officer of higher rank, meaning thereby,

power of DIG to inflict punishment may be exercised by

CWP-14996-2025 -38-

IGP. The State Government appoints DGP and other

officers who exercise such powers and perform such

functions as may be prescribed. The State Government as

per Rule 16.28 is empowered to review orders of IGP and

officers subordinate to him means State Government can

review even order of SP or DIG. The intention is only to

empower the State Government to correct mistake

committed by SP/DIG/IGP as disciplinary authority. There

was no reason to empower State Government to review

order of SP if object was to entertain review even against

appellate and revisionary orders.

Question No.3 - Whether reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 of

PPR has power to remand the matter back to subordinate authority?

35. As per Rule 16.28 the reviewing authority has power to

confirm, enhance, modify or annul the award. The Reviewing Authority

is also empowered to conduct further investigation or direct to be made

before passing orders. During last one year, this Court has noticed that

reviewing authority is remanding the matters back t o

Appellate/Revisionary Authorities. The reviewing authority has power to

confirm, enhance, modify or annul the award, however, there is no power

to remand. In the absence of specific provision/power, the reviewing

authority has no power to remand the matter back to authority below it.

The Legislature has not empowered the reviewing authority with power

to remand because reviewing authority is endowed with power to make

CWP-14996-2025 -39-

further investigation. It means reviewing authority if finds any deficiency

in the enquiry or orders of disciplinary authority, it may conduct

investigation and based on its outcome pass order. It is apposite to

mention here that authorities constituted under a particular statute may

exercise ancillary powers to exercise their substantive power, however,

authorities do not carry inherent powers and cannot exercise power which

is not vested in them. The Legislature has not vested reviewing authority

with power to remand though power to conduct investigation has been

conferred.

36. This Court is of the considered opinion that reviewing

authority should not remand the matter. In case of doubt, it should

conduct investigation and thereafter pass final order.

37. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the question

raised heretofore are resolved as under:-

i. The respondent cannot award punishment other than

dismissal from service where an enrolled Police officer has

been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one

month.

ii. Review under Rule 16.28 of PPR is not maintainable

against appellate or revisionary orders.

iii. Reviewing Authority under Rule 16.28 of PPR has no

power to remand the matter back to subordinate authority.

38. In the backdrop, CWP-14996-2025 is liable to be dismissed

and accordingly dismissed.

39. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CWP-14996-2025 -40-

CWP-23420-2025:

40. The petitioner is seeking setting aside of notice dated

07.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) whereby Superintendent of Police, Rewari

has withdrawn office order dated 01.03.2025 vide which annual

increments of 2023 and 2024 were restored. The petitioner joined

Haryana Police as Constable in September’ 2023 and she was promoted

from time to time. She was Investigating Officer of FIR No. 281 dated

06.06.2022, under Sections 376(2), 354D and 506 of IPC, registered at

Police Station, Model Town, Rewari. The respondent-Department

initiated inquiry against her alleging delay in registration of FIR. The

Superintendent of Police Rewari awarded her punishment of stoppage of

one annual increment vide order dated 23.02.2023. She preferred appeal

which was rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.03.2023.

She preferred Revision before Director General of Police, Haryana which

was also rejected vide order dated 26.06.2023. She preferred mercy

appeal before the Government which was allowed and punishment order

was set aside vide order dated 14.02.2025. She was also implicated in FIR

No.221 dated 19.09.2022, under Sections 166, 323, 342, 384, 506 of IPC.

She was subjected to departmental enquiry. She was awarded punishment

of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect vide order

dated 21.01.2023. She preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority

which was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2023. She preferred revision

before Director General of Police, Haryana which was dismissed vide

order dated 26.06.2023. She preferred mercy appeal before the

Government which was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2025.

CWP-14996-2025 -41-

Though in view of findings recorded heretofore, review in

the name of mercy petition was not maintainable, yet, orders passed by

Home Department cannot be ignored till quashed by competent authority.

The Home Department in its reply has justified its orders and these orders

are not under challenge. 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. Accordingly, impugned notice dated

07.08.2025 issued by Superintendent of Police, Rewari is hereby set-

aside.

41. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

42. Before parting with the judgment, I deem it appropriate to

direct ‘Singla Law Agency’ to incorporate in its books, amendments made

by Punjab and Haryana States in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

September 23, 2025

Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No