AISH MOHAMMAD versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 14-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
AISH MOHAMMAD
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2023)
JUNE 14, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Service Law: Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – rr.8.18 and 16.28
– Power to review proceedings – Compulsorily retirement –Adverse
remarks entered into appellant’s Annual Credential Report-ACR,
due to which Departmental Enquiry held and the appellant reverted
from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable – Reversion
order modified to stoppage of one increment – Adverse remarks
entered into ACR, expunged by the Inspector General of Police for
a partial period – In a suit, the civil judge interfered with the stoppage
of one increment, but not with the ACR – Appellant again filed a
representation before the Inspector General of Police, for expunction
of adverse remarks, and the adverse remarks were expunged –
However, the Director General of Police issued a Show-Cause Notice
to the appellant that the adverse remarks were wrongly expunged,
which made the appellant escape compulsory retirement – Thereafter,
the appellant was retired – Thereafter, in a petition, the Single Judge
of the High Court held that the Director General of Police could
not have passed the said order, as it amounted to a review of an
order passed by his predecessor-in-office – Division Bench set aside
the order holding that the order passed by the DGP to compulsorily
retire the appellant as correct – On appeal, held: ‘Review’
contemplated in r. 16.28 is by a superior authority and not the same
authority – Review is a re-look at an order passed by the same
authority which passed the original order, be it a Court oran
executive officer – Heading to the rule is a misnomer inasmuch as
no power of ‘review’ is created or conferred, as manifest from are
ading of (1), (2) and (3) of r. 16.28 – Director General of Police
rightly show-caused the appellant and took subsequent action
thereupon – Considering the chain of events, the consequential
action, cannot be said to be arbitrary or shocking the conscience
of the Court, so as to warrant interference – For a person in
uniformed service, like the police, adverse entry relating to his/her
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by the superior authority(ies)
who record and approve such entry – Personnel having such
remarks being compulsorily retired as per the statutory provisions
under the 1934 Rules, is not an action this Court would like to
interdict – Thus, no inclination to interfere with the order impugned
– Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934 – r. 3.26(d).
Punjab Police Rules, 1934: Hierarchy of police force –
Rules, originally framed in 1934, contemplated the authorities as
Inspector-General, Deputy Inspector-General, and Superintendent
of Police – Inspector-General of that time headed the State Police –
However, today the Inspector-General of Police is administratively
subordinate to the Director-General of Police and the Additional
Director-General of Police – Thus, the Rules, have not kept pace
with the times – It cannot be appreciated why the authorities
concerned unable to update/amend the Rules with at least the correct
official description of posts to obviate confusion.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The ‘review’ contemplated in Rule 16.28 of
the Punjab Police Rules, 1936 empowers a superior authority to
‘call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and
confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further
investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders.’
As such, the ‘review’ is by a superior authority and not the same
authority. [Para 18][414-B-C]
1.2 The factual premise noted by the Single Judge itself
was wrong, inasmuch as it was the Inspector General of Police,
who had, in effect, ‘reviewed’ an order passed by his predecessor-
in-office by expunging the adversere marks, which was previously
declined by his predecessor-in-office. [Para 17][413-E]
1.3 The incongruity has crept in the Rules due to passage
of time, legally and in fact. To a judicially or legally trained mind,
it is obvious that ‘review’ carries a specific connotation, but the
same is not the case herein. Put simply, review is a re-look at an
order passed by the same authority which passed the original
order, be it a Court or an executive officer. The heading to the
rule above is a misnomer inasmuch as no power of ‘review’ is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
creat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.