STATE OF HARYANA versus SHRI P.C. WADHWA, IPS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 16-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STA'(E OF HARYANA 
v. 
SHRI P.C. WADHWA, IPS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF 
POLICE & ANR. 
APRIL 16, 1987 
B 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules 1970-Rules 1(3), 
2(a), (e), (f), 5, 6, 6A and 7-Inspector General of Police-Confiden-
tial Reports-Reporting and Reviewing Authority-Minister-in-Charge 
of Police Department and not Home Secretary-Chief Minister-
C 
Communication of adverse remarks within seven months. 
D 
Police Act, 1861-Sections 3 and 4--Punjab Police Rules, 1934--
Rule 1.2-Inspector General of Police-Head of Police Department-
Immediate superior to Inspector General of Police-Minister-in-Charge 
). 
of Police Department. 
Business of Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974--
Rules 1-4, 6B-Home Secretary not head of Police Department-
Minister-in-Charge of Police Department Head of Department-
Confidential Report of Inspector General of Police-Chief Minister 
reviewing authority and accepting authority-Whether Business Rules 
E can override the provisions of Police Act, 1861 or any other statutory 
)... 
rules. 
Civil Service-Confidential Reports~'reporting' and 'reviewing' 
authority-Who is-Inspector General of Police-Minister-in-Charge 
of Police Department-Chief Minister-'Reporting', 'reviewing' and 
f' 
'accepting' authority-Adverse remarks-Object-to serve as advice for 
improvement and not as punishment-Lost by inordinate delay In 
communication-Necessity for communication-At the earliest. 
' 
I 
The respondent, a member of the Indian Police Service was the 
Inspector General of Police, Haryana from Jnne 30, 1979 to Jnly 2~, 
G 
1980. The Home Secretary to the Government of Haryana made certain 
adverse remarks against the respondent which after acceptance were 
communicated to the respondent on May 4, 1982, abont two years and 
three months after the close of the relevant period on March 31, 1980. 
The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the authority .of 
H 
the Home Secretary to write a confidential report assessing the per-
1030 
-
-
-~ 
\ 
HARYANA v. P.C. WADHWA 
1031 
{orrnance, character, conduct and qualities of the respondent as Ins-
A 
pector General of Police and for the quashing of such report or adverse 
remarks, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The 
respondent filed an appeal and the Division Bench set aside the judg-
ment of the Single Judge and allowed the writ petition holding that the 
Horne Secretary had no authority to submit any report against the 
performance of the respondent for the aforesaid period during which he 
B 
was the Inspector General of Police, Haryana. 
In the appeal by special leave by the State of Haryana it was 
submitted that as the Police Department has been placed under the 
Horne Department and the Horne Secretary being the head of the 
Department, the Horne Secretary must necessarily be the Head of the 
C 
Police Department under the Business of the Haryana Government 
(Allocation) Rules, 1974. It was also stated that the provisions of Rules S, 
6, 6A and 7 of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules 1970 are 
directory and not mandatory. 
It was urged by the respondent that the Business Rules framed 
D 
under Article 166 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of interpreting 
the provisions of clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Rules, and in view of the 
delay in communication, the adverse remarks lost all importance and 
should be struck down on that ground. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
E 
HELD: 1. A reporting authority must be a person to whom the 
member of the Service is answerable for his performances. Such an 
authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the Service 
concerned. The State Government can specifically empower only such 
authority as the reporting authority as is superior in rank to the Ins-
F 
pector General of Police. (I036H; I037A-B] 
2.1 The Business Rules have been framed under clauses (2) and 
(3) of Article 166 of the Constitution for the more convenient transac-
tion of the business of the Government of Haryana and for the alloca-
tion of business ;irnong the Ministers. ( I038E-FI 
G 
2.2 Under Rule 4 of the Business Rules, the Secretary of each 
Department of the Secretariat is the head of the Department. Thns, the 
Secretary of the Horne Department is the head of the Home Department 
being a Department of the Secretariat, but merely because he has to 
conduct the business, on behalf of the Government, of the Police 
H 
1032 
SUPR

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