Update Punjab Civil Services Rules: SC

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, June 14

The Supreme Court today directed the states of Punjab and Haryana to take immediate steps to update or amend the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, with correct official description of posts to obviate confusion.

“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,” a Vacation Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

Directing the two state governments to forthwith take steps in line with its observations, the court ordered its Registry to communicate copies of the judgment to the Chief Secretaries, Governments of Punjab and Haryana, the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab and the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Haryana, and the DGPs of Punjab and Haryana.

It pointed out that “the Rules, originally framed in 1934, contemplated the authorities as ‘The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police’. The ‘Inspector-General’ of that time (when the service was called Imperial/Indian Police) headed the State Police, but is today known as, in most States and Union Territories, barring a handful, in the hierarchy of the State Police, as the Director-General of Police, an officer drawn from the Indian Police Service, who sits at the apex of the state police machinery.”

“In fact, today the Inspector-General of Police is administratively subordinate to the Director-General of Police and the Additional Director-General of Police,” it added.

The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by constable Aish Mohammad challenging a verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court restoring the order of the DGP, Haryana, directing reconstruction of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) against him on account of corruption, insubordination and dereliction of duty.

“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,” the court added.