Supreme Court Says Punjab Police Rules Outdated In Terms Of Current Hierarchy Of Police Force; Directs Remedial Measures

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its dissatisfaction noting how the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 have not been amended yet in terms of the current hierarchy of the police force.

Explaining this, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that as per the Rules, the authority of the Inspector General was envisaged as the highest during the legislation’s enactment. But now, the highest position in Police is held by the Director General of Police, an officer drawn from the Indian Police Service.

“In fact, today the Inspector-General of Police is administratively subordinate to the Director-General of Police and the Additional Director-General of Police.”

The Rules, the Court lamented, have not kept pace with the changing times.

“The Rules were also framed at a time when the system of Ranges and Commissionerates had not been established. Indubitably, the Rules, for better or for worse (worse, we hazard) have not kept pace with the times. We do not appreciate why the authorities concerned are unable to update/amend the Rules with at least the correct official description of posts to obviate confusion.”

In this regard, the Bench directed that copies of this judgment be circulated to the Chief Secretaries, Governments of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and other officials to rectify this issue.

The Court’s observations came in a plea moved by a police stable challenging his dismissal from service.

Adverse remarks were entered into the Appellant’s Annual Confidential Report, due to which an order of departmental enquiry was passed based on a complaint. In the departmental enquiry, an order was passed and so, the appellant was reverted from the post of Head Constable to that of a Constable. The appellant challenged this. The reversion order was modified to stoppage of one increment.

After getting the remarks only partially expunged by the Inspector General of Police for the period of April 1, 2000 to December 29, 2000, he moved the district court. He wasn’t able to get a favourable order. And, so he moved a representation before the IGP of the Gurgaon Range again, who expunged all the remarks in question in 2005.

However, the Director General of Police issued a Show-Cause Notice to the appellant that the adverse remarks were wrongly expunged and an order of compulsory retirement was in order rather than further promotions.

The matter came up before the High Court. A Single Judge ruled that the Director General of Police could not have passed the order impugned as it amounted to a review of an order passed by his predecessor-in-office. In appeal, the Division Bench restored the retiral order. This prompted the appellant to move the Apex Court.

After going through the factual matrix, the Supreme Court did not agree to Single Judge’s reasoning.

“Clearly, the ‘review’ contemplated in Rule 16.28 empowers a superior authority to ‘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.’ As such, the ‘review’ is by a superior authority and not the same authority”, the Bench observed.

Further, the Court said that to a judicially or legally trained mind, it is obvious that ‘review’ carries a specific connotation, but the same isn’t the case here.

“Put simply, review is a re-look at an order passed by the same authority which passed the original order, be it a Court or an executive officer. The heading to the rule above is a misnomer inasmuch as no power of ‘review’ is created or conferred, as manifest from a reading of (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 16.28. For completeness, Rule 16.29 is entitled “Right of appeal” and Rule 16.32 is labelled “Revision”. This is one part of the issue”, the Bench highlighted.

Division Bench’s Reasoning Also Not Correct: SC

The Court opined that the Division Bench too, had not approached the issue in the manner it was required to. The reason given for interference with the Single Judge’s view is that it was highly improbable and unwarranted for the Inspector General of Police to have expunged the adverse remarks when there was a judicial verdict refusing to do so.

In the words to the Division Bench, the judicial verdict by the Civil Court should have been respected. This reasoning is also erroneous, the Top Court said.

“The fact remained that, rightly or wrongly, the learned Civil Court had granted this opportunity to the appellant to move again for expunction of adverse remarks, which the appellant did. Having said that, this Court would now look at the issue from a totally legal point of view – firstly, the authorities were exercising the power conferred on them by statute, and secondly, any order which amounts to ‘review’ (in the legal sense of the word) of an earlier order by the same authority cannot be undertaken, unless specifically so conferred by the relevant statute.”

The Court said that the Civil Judge was wrong to grant liberty to the appellant to move for expunction of remarks especially in the absence of any such provisions in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

“There may be cases where a High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India or this Court in exercise of its constitutional powers may specifically direct for fresh consideration of a representation, even in the absence of specific provisions…. Thus, the observation by the learned Civil Court that the appellant could approach the authority, cannot be taken to mean that the appellant was granted carte blanche liberty in law to approach the same authority. What the learned Civil Court lost sight of was that no provision permitted the course of action suggested by it.”

The Court further commented that for a person in uniformed service, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by the superior authority(ies) who record and approve such entry. “Personnel having such remarks being compulsorily retired as per the statutory provisions under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, in the instant facts, is not an action this Court would like to interdict”, the Bench said before dismissing the appeal.

Case Title: Aish Mohammed vs State of Haryana and ors | Civil Appeal No.4044 Of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment