Who is final authority for Punjab DIG Bhullar? High Court weighs CBI powers

Just about a week after DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar contended that the CBI could proceed only against central government employees in Chandigarh, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday morning questioned whose employee an IPS officer was and called for the All India Service Act and the relevant rules.

“The State government has the power to initiate disciplinary action, but ultimately who is the final authority?” the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry questioned during the hearing.

His counsel, senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai, argued that Bhullar was a Punjab cadre IPS officer.

As such, the relevant authority was Punjab.

“In the case of an IAS officer in the State of Punjab, they have sent the file to the State of Punjab for sanction. You are required to obtain sanction from the authority under whose service the public servant is.” The case will now come up for a resumed hearing during the post-lunch session.

The pivotal jurisdictional question—whether the CBI, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, can investigate anyone other than Central government employees without a specific order—cropped up before the High Court today, during the previous hearing.

Rai, along with counsel Sangram Singh Saron and Arjun Singh Rai, had argued that Section 5 of the DSPE Act limited the agency’s jurisdiction in Chandigarh strictly to Central government employees. Rai submitted that Section 5(1) expressly required a specific order of the Central government extending DSPE powers to any area.

Rai asserted the only existing direction empowered the CBI to act against Central government employees posted in Chandigarh, not state officers. Any broader interpretation—especially allowing the CBI to investigate Punjab and Haryana officers merely because their capital is Chandigarh—would effectively convert the agency into a “super-power vigilance bureau for two states”, something “not envisaged” by the statute.