SC Directs Punjab And Haryana Govt To Amend The Outdated Punjab Police Rules To Match Current Police Force Structure

The Supreme Court recently directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to initiate amendments to the 1934 Punjab Police Rules to align them with the current structure of the police force.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the Rules have become incongruous over time, both legally and factually.

The apex court acknowledged that the Rules referred to the Inspector General (IG) as the highest authority, which was accurate during the colonial era when the Rules were enacted. However, currently, the position of the highest authority is held by the Director General of Police (DGP).

“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 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,” the bench stated.

The bench directed the Chief Secretaries, Home Secretaries, and DGPs of Punjab and Haryana to be informed of the judgment for necessary action. These observations were made while upholding a 2011 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had approved the dismissal of a constable from service.

In a previous legal proceeding before a district court, the petitioner had been unsuccessful in having adverse remarks removed from his annual confidential reports. However, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) of the Gurgaon Range, in 2005, expunged all the remarks in question, contrary to the decision made by his predecessor.

Subsequently, in 2006, the Haryana DGP served the constable with a show-cause notice, stating that he had received undue benefits and should be compulsorily retired instead of being promoted further. The Superintendents of Police in Nuh and Pawal informed him that his services were no longer required as he had reached the age of 55, resulting in his retirement from December 2008.

Initially, a single-judge of the High Court nullified the retiral order, but a division bench reinstated it, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that only a superior authority could have reviewed the IGP’s initial order against the appellant.

“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 stated.

The bench also expressed its opinion that the rule pertaining to the review powers was also a misnomer.

“To a judicially or legally trained mind, it is obvious that ‘review’ carries a specific connotation, but the same is not the case herein. 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,” the bench further noted.

Hence, the bench added that any review power exercised by the IGP in the present case was deemed “wholly arbitrary.” The Supreme Court highlighted that while the appellant may have had valid grounds to approach the Haryana DGP, approaching the IGP again was not justified.

“As such, the Director General of Police had rightly show-caused the appellant and taken subsequent action thereupon. Considering the chain of events, the consequential action, in our considered view, cannot be said to be arbitrary or shocking the conscience of the Court, so as to warrant interference. For a person in uniformed service, like the police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by the superior authority(ies) who record and approve such entry.”

Consequently, the appeal was not entertained.