Haryana Home Secy, DGP on different page over dismissal rules

Haryana Home Secretary Dr Sumita Misra and Director General of Police (DGP) Shatrujeet Singh Kapur filed contrary affidavits before the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding rules concerning dismissal of convicted police officials from criminal courts where the sentence exceeded one month.

At issue was Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), as applicable in Haryana. It says that a police officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe, shall, if such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed.”

A few police officials were dismissed after their conviction for voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement and framing of an incorrect document. They were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment in 2012. Their appeals before the Appellate Authority were dismissed, and their revision petitions before the DGP were also rejected. However, one of them filed a mercy petition before the Home Department, and the ACS, Home, in 2013, which converted dismissal to compulsory retirement.

When the matter reached the High Court, it asked both the Home Secretary and the DGP to file affidavits on the issue.

According to the High Court judgment, the Home Secretary attempted to justify the decision to convert the punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement in cases where an officer has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. According to her, despite a categorical and lucid policy of the state, the Home Department can award a lesser punishment than the one mandatorily prescribed in the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) applicable in Haryana.

On the other hand, the DGP, in his affidavit, dated September 16, deposed that authorities carry no discretion to award punishment other than dismissal from service where a police officer has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.

While deciding the issue on whether punishment other than dismissal can be awarded, Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled, “The stand of the DGP seems to be in consonance with the mandate of Rule 16.2(2) of PPR. The authorities are bound to act as per the mandate of the rules. The authorities can exercise discretion in case of directory provision, whereas in case of mandatory provision, the authorities cannot exercise discretion. The first part of Rule 16.2(2) is mandatory, thus, authorities carry no discretion.”

An appeal against orders of the SP is maintainable before the IGP, and revision against the order of the appellate authority (IGP) is maintainable before the DGP. However, some police officials have been directly approaching the ACS, Home, against the orders of the DGP to seek relief from punishment, and the office of the ACS, Home, has been routinely entertaining these mercy petitions and setting aside the DGP's orders in various such cases.

Interpreting Rule 16.28 of PPR, which prescribes powers to review, the High Court ruled that a review under Rule 16.28 “is not maintainable against appellate or revisionary orders.”

It added that the reviewing authority “has no power to remand the matter back to the subordinate authority.” It means that the reviewing authority, if it finds any deficiency in the inquiry or orders of the disciplinary authority, may conduct an investigation and, based on its outcome, pass an order.

It implied that the ACS, Home, cannot entertain mercy petitions against the revisional orders of the DGP. Additionally, the ACS, Home, cannot remand the cases back to the DGP or other police officers for a fresh decision, and the DGP's decision shall be final.