‘DGP was not powerless’: HC sets aside 2006 order; says Haryana police must revisit punishments after acquittal

A two-decade-old controversy over recalling punishment imposed on a police official after his acquittal in a criminal case has finally come to an end, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the Director-General of Police was not powerless to reconsider such matters.

The case has its genesis in a theft case registered nearly three decades ago in February 1995 under Section 380 IPC. Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the petitioner, an official with the Haryana police, was implicated in the FIR on the ground that he had illegally detained a woman in connection with the FIR dated February 10, 1995, under Section 380 IPC.

A departmental inquiry followed, culminating in 1996 with the punishment of forfeiture of six increments with permanent effect.

After his subsequent acquittal by the trial court, the officer approached the DGP, who, on January 3, 2002, recalled the punishment. Four years later, on September 5, 2006, a successor DGP reversed the decision, sparking a long-running dispute that the High Court has now settled.

Justice Bansal quoted a precedent judgment as saying the authorities were duty-bound to reconsider departmental punishment in case of acquittal of a delinquent in criminal proceedings.”

Referring to Rules 16.2 and 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, the court added that the authorities could reject the claim. In fact, its acceptance or rejection was one aspect, and the existence of power was another. The departmental authorities were empowered to reconsider an officer’s case following acquittal.

“The authorities were bound to reconsider the case of the petitioner in view of his acquittal in the criminal case. Despite acquittal, departmental punishment may be upheld; however, it cannot be concluded that authorities do not possess the power to reconsider departmental punishment after acquittal in a criminal case,” Justice Bansal observed.

Referring to the scope of the review power, the court clarified that reconsideration after acquittal was permissible, but the DGP could not sit in review over his own orders.

“It is legally correct that no police officer, including the DGP, has the power to review their own order. As per Rule 16.28 of PPR, the power of review vests in a higher authority… Accordingly, the DGP has no power to review his order. He can review orders passed by his subordinates.”

Allowing the plea, Justice Bansal held: “This Court is of the considered opinion that the DGP rightly considered the petitioner’s petition after his acquittal in the criminal case. He was not powerless. The instant petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.”

Why the order matters

Clarity on powers: The High Court has clarified that a DGP cannot review his own orders, but he is empowered to reconsider departmental punishment once an officer is acquitted in a criminal case.

Duty to revisit: Authorities are “duty-bound” under the Punjab Police Rules to take a fresh look at punishment after acquittal, though they may still uphold it.

Three-decade litigation ends: The ruling brings closure to a dispute that began with a 1995 FIR, a 1996 penalty, its recall in 2002, reversal in 2006, and now final quashing.