The single judge bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and others held that the when the post of Inspector General of Police as mentioned under Rule 16.29 stands re-designated to be the Director General of Police, remedy of appeal would now lie with the Director General of Police of the State.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was enrolled as a constable and was further promoted as the head constable. The petitioner worked for a total period of 33 years in Haryana Police Department and had more than 95% good ACRs. The petitioner was due for promotion from the rank of inspector to the rank of deputy superintendent of police. However, the petitioner was disqualified from consideration for promotion due to a lack of good faith, as evidenced by the petitioner's posting as a SHO at the time.
However, the petitioner was disqualified from consideration for promotion due to a lack of good faith, as evidenced by the petitioner's posting as a SHO at the time. The charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 4, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. the FIR stood cancelled and further the report was also submitted. The issuance of the disagreement note-cum-show cause notice was just to victimize the petitioner and to oust him from the zone of consideration for promotion to the higher rank of DSP. Aggrieved against the order, the petitioner knocked doors of this Court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the disagreement note show-cum notice is been timed just to scuttle the promotion of the petitioner to the rank of DSP. Further, there is an inordinate delay of 2 years 4 months in issuing the disagreement note to the order passed by the punishing authority whereby the petitioner stood exonerated. It was further submitted that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.29 (1), state that decisions of dismissal, reduction, halt of increment, or forfeiture of approved service for increment are subject to appeal. According to the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as they apply to the instant case, no appeal is available in the current case against the order that has already been issued by the authority to whom appeals are available against orders passed by subordinates. As a result, the petitioner has no other available remedy other than to approach this Court in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the regular departmental enquiry was issued against the petitioner on the account of allegations, then, the car was found parked on the road in the suspicious manner. Thereafter, one man and one woman was found sitting in the car and the man was under the influence of liquor. The petitioner released the man without taking any action by taking illegal gratification of Rs 3,00,000/-. The disagreement note-cumshow cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Rule 16.28(1) to which petitioner duly replied.
It was further argued that in view of Section 5 of the Haryana Police Act, 2007, the entire command/supervision of the police force in the State of Haryana is vested with the DGP, which was earlier vested with the Inspector General of Police under the Police Act, 1861. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 have to be read in conjunction with the new Act of 2007 and therefore, as per Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, an appeal against the order of dismissal from service passed by respondent No.3 lies to the Director General of Police, Haryana and therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that when the post of Inspector General of Police as mentioned under Rule 16.29 stands re-designated to be the Director General of Police, remedy of appeal would now lie with the Director General of Police of the State. This is also in consonance with the stand of the respondents that the Appellate Authority would be the Director General of Police, Haryana.
Therefore, once there is a remedy of appeal, this writ petition is being disposed of by giving a direction, that in case the petitioner files an appeal taking all pleas as taken in the writ petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana.
CASE NAME- Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and others
CITATION- CWP No. 2998 of 2022 (O&M)
CORUM- Justice Jaishree Thakur
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
