In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana to amend the 1934 Punjab Police Rules to reflect the current hierarchy of the police force. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the outdated rules, noting that they have not kept pace with the changes in the organization of the police force over time.
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed that the Rules still referred to the Inspector General (IG) as the highest authority, despite the fact that the position is now held by the Director General of Police (DGP). The Court emphasized that the Rules were framed during colonial rule when the system of Ranges and Commissionerates had not been established. It called for the authorities to update the Rules to avoid confusion caused by the outdated descriptions of posts.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court's directive came in response to a plea filed by a dismissed police constable challenging his dismissal from service. The constable had faced adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report, leading to a departmental enquiry and subsequent reversion from the post of Head Constable to that of a Constable. The appellant sought relief from the courts, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observation
During the proceedings, the Court examined the powers of review granted to the Inspector General of Police under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules. It clarified that the power of review should be exercised by a superior authority, not the same authority that passed the original order. The Court also highlighted the misnomer in the rule's heading, as it does not confer the power of review.
The Court found fault with both the initial Single Judge's ruling and the subsequent Division Bench's decision. The Single Judge had held that the Director General of Police could not review the order passed by his predecessor, while the Division Bench considered it highly improbable and unwarranted for the Inspector General of Police to expunge the adverse remarks against the constable. The Supreme Court criticized both interpretations, emphasizing the need to examine the issue from a legal standpoint and strictly adhere to the provisions of the relevant statutes.
The Court further emphasized that the power to adjudicate adverse entries pertaining to the integrity and conduct of personnel lies with the superior authorities responsible for recording and approving such entries. It highlighted that the compulsory retirement of personnel with adverse remarks is in accordance with the statutory provisions under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934.
Case Name: Aish Mohammad Vs State Of Haryana & Ors, 2023 Latest Caselaw 526 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 526 SC
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.4044 Of 2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Advocate Vinod Kumar Tewari
Advocates of the Respondent: Additional Advocate General Nikhil Goel with advocates Samar Vijay Singh and Amrita Verma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Delhi_Police_Officers.JPG
