P&H High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Gallantry-Awarded IGP Who Was Suspended After 2015 Firing On Protestors, Says No Procedure Was Followed

Observing that "state cannot pick and choose rules of their suitability", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the suspension orders of Punjab's Inspector General of Police (IGP) and directed the State to allow him to join services.

IGP Paramraj Singh Umranangal was suspended in 2019 after he was arrayed as an accused in a police firing case in 2015, following an incident of sacrilege.

A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "It is very unfortunate to observe that on the one hand the petitioner is awarded with two Gallantry Awards for rendering his meritorious service in combating with terrorism in the State of Punjab, but on the other hand the State Government has placed the petitioner under Suspension since 18.02.2019 till date i.e. for a period of almost five years without following any procedure, without any extension, without any recommendation of Central Review Committee, without any confirmation by the Central Government, which doubts the intention of the officers who are passing the suspension orders one after the other."

A petition was filed challenging the judgement passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh bench in which the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement was rejected.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969's sub-clause (1B) of Rule 3 and sub-para (ix) of the amendment dated 21.12.2015, which specifically deals with period of suspension of an All-India Service Officer states that if a member of service is suspended on charges other than corruption, then the period of suspension shall not exceed more than 1 year.

The same can only be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the Central Ministry's Review Committee, he added.

Considering the submissions, the Court said, "A bare reading of Rule 3(8)(c) of 1969 Rules shows that the composition and function of the Review Committee and the procedure to be followed by them shall be as specified in the Schedule 1 annexed to these rules, meaning thereby that it is mandatory to follow Schedule -1."

A perusal of all the suspension orders and the modification of order shows that these have been passed without application of mind since on the one hand the wording used by the respondent in the suspension orders is “as per recommendation of review committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969” and on the other hand the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1 are not followed by the respondent, noted the bench.

Referring to Schedule 1 of the Rule the bench said, "it shows that “in every case the review shall be done within 90 days from the date of order of suspension. In case where a period of suspension has been extended, the next review shall be done within a period of 180 days from the date of last extension.” Even as per Functions mentioned in Schedule 1 a particular time limit i.e. 90 days, 180 days is a mandate."

But in the present case while passing the order of suspension under Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1969, by placing the case before the Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1969, the State has totally ignored the Rules formulated by the Central Government, it added.

"State cannot pick and choose the Rules of their suitability and pass the orders without following the procedure as mentioned in the Rules," the Court opined.

The Court further added that the State Government is expected to adhere to the Rules and the Procedure as laid down by the framers.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed the State to allow the petitioner to join the services forthwith.

Appearance: D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate with  G.S.Patwalia, Advocate with  S.S.Saron, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 – Union of India.

R.K. Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 33