vil Appeal No 4395 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1081984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No 748 of 1983
FS Nariman SS Shroff and Mrs PS Shroff for the Appellant
Respondent in person
RK Garg and A Saran for the Intervener
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana whereby the Division Bench has set aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the respondent Shri PC Wadhwa a member of the Indian Police Service
who was the Inspector General of Police Haryana from June 30 1979 to July 25 1980
It appears that certain adverse remarks were made by the Home Secretary to the Govern ment of Haryana against Shri Wadhwa the Inspector General of Police for the said period
The adverse remarks were duly accepted by the competent authority under the All India Services Confidential Rolls Rules 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 
After such acceptance the adverse remarks were communicated to Shri Wadhwa by the Home Secre tary by his letter dated May 4 1982 about two years three months after the close of the relevant period of March 31 1980
The re spondent did not make any representation against the adverse remarks to the reviewing authority under the Rules
Instead he chose to file a writ petition before the Punjab  Haryana High Court challenging the authority of the Home Secretary to write a confidential report assessing the performances character conduct and qualities of the respondent as the Inspector General of Police and prayed for the quashing of such report or adverse remarks
1034 A learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that as the Home Secretary was specifically empowered by the State Government as the reporting authority under Rule 2e of the Rules he had the authority to write the report or to make adverse remarks against the performances of the Inspector General of Police Haryana
In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the respondent filed an appeal against the same to the Division Bench of the High Court and as stated al ready the Division Bench set aside the judg ment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ petition holding inter alia that the Home Secretary had no authority to submit any report against the performance of the respond ent for the aforesaid period during which he was the Inspector General of Police Haryana
Hence this appeal by special leave by the State of Haryana
The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether the State Government was justified in specifically empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for the purpose of writing a confidential report in respect of the Inspector General of Police
Section 3 of the empowers the Central Government to make rules for the regulation of recruitment and the conditions of services of persons appointed to an All India Service
By virtue of section 3 the Central Government framed the Rules
Under Rule 13 the Rules shall apply to the writ ing and the maintenance of the confidential reports on the members of the Service
Clauses e f and a of Rule 2 of the Rules are as follows 2
Definitions In these rules unless the context otherwise requires e reporting authority  means the authority who was during the period for which the confidential report is written immediate ly superior to the member of the Service and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government f reviewing authority  means the authority who was 1035 during the period for which the confidential report is written immediately superior to the reporting authority and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government a accepting authority  means the authority who was during the period for which the confidential report is written immediate ly superior to the reviewing authority and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government In this connection it may be pointed out that it is not disputed that the conjunction and  occurring in clauses e f and a should be read as or 
Under clause e the reporting authority  may be either immediately superior to the member of the Service or such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government
The expression immediately superior  obviously indicates that the reporting authority should be the immediate superi or officer in the same Service to which the member of the Service belongs
The position is the same as in the cases of reviewing authority  and accepting authority 
So under the first part of clause e the reporting authority of the respondent could be a person who is immediately superior to him in the Police Service
At this stage it is necessary to refer to sections 3 and 4 of the 
Sections 3 and 4 are as follows Section 3
The superintendence of the police throughout a general police district shall vest in and shall be exercised by the State Government to which such district is subordi nate and except as authorized under the provisions of this Act no person officer or Court shall be empowered by the State Govern ment to supersede or control any police func tionary
Section 4
The administration of the police throughout a general police district shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspec tor General of Police and in such Deputy Inspectors General and Assistant Inspectors General as to the State Government shall seem fit
The administration of the Police throughout the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the district shall under the general control and direction of such Magis trate be vested 1036 in a District Superintendent and such Assist ant District Superintendents as the State Government shall consider necessary It is clear from sections 3 and 4 that the administra tion of the police throughout a general police district shall be vested in the Inspector General of Police
The position and status of the Inspector General of Police have been described in Rule 12 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 Volume I Rule 12 provides as follows Rule 12
The responsibility for the command of the police force its recruitment disci pline internal economy and administration throughout the general police district vests in the Inspector General of Police
He is head of the Police Department and is responsible for its direction and control and for advising the Provincial Government in all matters connected with It
In the discharge of his duties as Inspector General arid in the execu tion of order of Government he is bound to act in conformity with the system and regulations regarding the functions discipline and admin istration of the Force contained in the V of 1861 and in these rules
Orders of the Provincial Government affecting the Police force in whole or in part will be issued through him
Inspector General is assisted in the control and administration of the Police force by such number of Deputy Inspectors General and Assistant Inspectors General as the Pro vincial Government may from time to time appoint
 Under Rule 12 the Inspector General of Police is the head of the Police Department and is responsible for its direction and control and for advising the Provincial Gov ernment in all matters connected with it
Thus the Inspec tor General of Police being the head of the Police Depart ment there is no immediately superior officer to him in the Police Service
Consequently the first part of clause e will not have any application to the respondent
Now the question is whether the State Government can specifically empower any authority to be the reporting authority of the Inspector General of Police under the second part of clause e
Apart from any legal provision it is just and proper that a reporting authority 1037 must be a person to whom the member of the Service is an swerable for his performances
In other words the reporting authority should be a person higher in rank than the member of the Service
Indeed that is apparent from the first part of clause e
It is true that under the second part of clause e there is no indication as to the status and position of the authority who may be specifically empowered by the Government as the reporting authority but from the point of view of propriety and reasonableness and having regard to the intention behind the rule which is manifest such an authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the Service concerned
If that be not so there will be an apparent conflict between the first part and second part of clause e
We are therefore of the view that the State Government can specifically empower only such authority as the reporting authority as is superior in rank to the In spector General of Police
It is however submitted by Mr Nariman learned Coun sel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that the Home Secretary is the head of the Police Department under the Business of the Haryana Government Allocation Rules 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Business Rules
The Business Rules have been framed by the Haryana Government in exercise of the power conferred by clauses 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India
Rules 1 to 4 of the Business Rules are as follows 1
These rules may be called the Busi ness of the Haryana Government Allocation Rules 1974
The Business of the Government of the State of Haryana shall be transacted in the Departments specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules and shall be classified and distributed among those Departments as laid down therein
The Governor shall on the advice of the Chief Minister allot among the Ministers the business of the Government by assigning one or more Departments to the Charge of a Minister
Provided that nothing in this rule shall prevent the assigning of one Department to the charge of more than one Minister
Each Department of the Secretariat shall consist of the 1038 Secretary to the Government who shall be the official head of that Department and of such other officers and servants subordinate to him as the State Government may determine Provided that a more than one Department may be placed in charge of the same Secretary and b the work of a Department may be divided between two or more Secretaries
 Rule 2 provides inter alia that the Business of the Government of the State of Haryana shall be transacted in the Departments specified in the Schedule
Under rule 4 each Department of the Secretariat shall consist of the Secretary to the Government who shall be official head of that De partment
In the Schedule to the Business Rules Item No 17 under the Home Department inter alia relates to Police Railway Police and PAP Much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the State of Haryana on Rule 4 read with Item No 17
It is submitted by him that the Home Secretary being the head of the Home Department and as the Police Department has been placed under the Home Department the Home Secretary must necessarily be the head of the Police Department
We are unable to accept this contention
The Business Rules have been framed under clauses 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution for the more conven ient transaction of the business of the Government of Har yana and for the allocation of business among the Ministers
Under Rule 4 the Secretary of each Department of the Secre tariat is the head of that Department
Thus the Secretary of the Home 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 Department he does not thereby become the head of the Police Department
Item No 37 under the General Administration Department in the Schedule relates to Judges of the High Court and officers of the Superior Judicial Service
The Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana is the head of the General Administration Department by virtue of Rule 4 of the Business Rules
But that does not mean that the Chief Secretary is also the head of the Administration relating to the Judges of the High Court and officers of the Superior Judicial Service
Similarly Item No 21 of the General Administration Department relates to Council of Ministers and its 1039 Committees
Surely the Chief Secretary has no authority whatsoever on the Council of Ministers and its Committees
There is therefore no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant that as Police Railway Police and PAP have been placed under the Home Department the Secretary of the Home Department is the head of the Police Department by virtue of Rule 4 of the Business Rules
The Rules of Business that have been framed under Article 166 cannot override the provisions of the Act or any statutory rules
Indeed the Business Rules also do not attempt to override Rule 12 of the Punjab Police Rules for it cannot
There is much substance in the contention made by the re spondent appearing in person and Mr Garg learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener the IPS Officers  Association that the Business Rules framed under Article 166 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of interpretating the provision of clause e of Rule 2 of the Rules
In view of sections 3 and 4 of the read with Rule 12 of the Punjab Police Rules the Inspector General of Police Haryana is the head of the Police Department
The immediate authority superior to the Inspector General of Police is the Minister in Charge of the Police Department
The only authority who could be specifically empowered as the reporting authority in regard to the Inspector General of Police under clause e of Rule 2 of the  Rules is the Minister in Charge and the Chief Minister being superior to the Minister in Charge may be the reviewing authority under clause f of Rule 2
In acting as the reporting authority the Minister in Charge may be assisted by the Home Secre tary but the confidential report relating to the perform ance of the Inspector General of Police has to be written by the Minister in Charge
The Minister in Charge of the Police Department is supposed to be aware of the performance of the Inspector General of Police
As the Chief Minister is the reviewing authority he will also act as the accepting authority on the basis of the principle as laid down under Rule 6B of the Rules providing that where the accepting authority writes or reviews the confidential report of any member of the Service it shall not be further necessary to review or accept any such report
In other words the Chief Minister will act both as the reviewing authority and the accepting authority
In this connection we may notice the statements made in the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High court of Punjab  Haryana
It has been stated in paragraph 14 that reports of the work and conduct of the various Secretaries to the Government are written and recorded by the Minister in Charge of the Departments concerned 1040 and not even by the Chief Secretary so that the Minister in Charge of the Departments concerned are the immediate superior  authorities to the Secretaries concerned within the meaning of Rule 2e of the Rules
Further it has been stated that before independence the report on the work and conduct of the Inspector General of Police Punjab was being recorded by the Minister in Charge of the Department and such a position continued even after the independence till 1974 when the Haryana State Government passed the order dated May 3 1974 under clause e of Rule 2 of the Rules inter alia specifically empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for writing out the confidential reports in regard to the Inspector General of Police Har yana
The statements made in paragraph 14 have not been denied by the State of Haryana in its counter affidavit filed in the High Court
The Division Bench of the High Court was therefore perfectly justified in quashing the confidential report written by the then Home Secretary on the work and conduct of the respondent Shri Wadhwa
Before we part with this appeal we may dispose of another contention of the respondent about the delay in communicating to him the impugned adverse remarks
Under Rule 5 of the Rules a confidential report assessing the performances character conduct and qualities of every member of the service shall be written for each financial year or calendar year as may be specified by the Govern ment ordinarily within two months of the close of the said year
Rule 6 provides that the confidential report shall be reviewed by the reviewing authority ordinarily within one month of its being written
Under Rule 6A the confidential report after review shall be accepted with such modifica tions as may be considered necessary and countersigned by the accepting authority ordinarily within one month of its review
Thus the whole process from the writing of the confidential report to the acceptance thereof has to be completed ordinarily within a maximum period of four months
Further under Rule 7 the adverse remarks if any in a confidential report shall be communicated to the officer concerned within three months of the receipt of the confi dential report
Thus a total period of seven months has been laid down as the maximum period within which adverse remarks if any has to be communicated to the officer concerned
It has been already noticed that the adverse remarks were sent to the respondent after two years three months that is after twenty seven months of the close of the year
It is submitted by the respondent that in view of the delayed communication
the adverse remarks lost all importance and should be struk down on that ground
1041 The whole object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performance conduct or charac ter as the case may
The adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment but really it should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career
The whole object of the making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the officer con cerned after an inordinate delay
In the instant case it was communicated to the respondent after twenty seven months
It is true that the provisions of Rules 5 6 6A and 7 are directory and not mandatory but that does not mean that the directory provisions need not be complied with even substantially
Such provisions may not be complied with strictly and substantial compliance will be sufficient
But where compliance after an inordinate delay would be against the spirit and object of the directory provision such compliance would not be substantial compliance
In the instant case while the provisions of Rules 5 6 6A and 7 require that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months this period cannot be stretched to twenty seven months simply because these Rules are directory without serving any purpose consistent with the spirit and objec tives of these Rules
We need not however dilate upon the question any more and consider whether on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable delay the adverse remarks against the respondent should be struck down or not and suffice it to say that we do not approve of the inordinate delay made in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent
For the reasons aforesaid this appeal is dismissed
There will however be no order as to costs
NPV Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The respondent a member of the Indian Police Service was the Inspector General of Police Haryana from June 30 1979 to July 25 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 about 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 the Home Secre tary to write a confidential report assessing the per 1031 formance character conduct and qualities of the respondent as Inspector 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 judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the writ petition holding that the Home Secretary had no authority to submit any report against the performance of the respondent for the aforesaid period during which he 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 Home Department and the Home Secretary being the head of the Department the Home Secretary must necessarily be the Head of the Police Department under the Business of the Haryana Government Allocation Rules 1974
It was also stated that the provisions of Rules 5 6 6A and 7 of the All India Services Confiden tial Rolls Rules 1970 are directory and not mandatory
It was urged by the respondent that the Business Rules framed 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 communica tion the adverse remarks lost all importance and should be struck down on that ground
Dismissing the appeal 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 Inspector General of Police
1036H 1037A B 21 The Business Rules have been framed under clauses 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of Haryana and for the allocation of business among the Ministers
1038E F 22 Under Rule 4 of the Business Rules the Secretary of each Department of the Secre tariat is the head of the Department
Thus the Secretary of the Home 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 1032 Department he does not thereby become the Head of the Police Department
1038F G 23 The Rules of Business that have been framed under Article 166 cannot override the provisions of the Act or any statutory rules
In view of Section 3 and 4 of the read with Rule 12 to the Punjab Police Rules the Inspector General of Police Haryana is the Head of the Police Department
The immediate authority superior to Inspector General of Police is the Minister in Charge of the Police Department
The only authority who could be specifically empowered as the report ing authority in regard to the Inspector General of Police under clause e of Rule 2 of the All India Services Confidential Rolls Rules is the Minister in Charge and the Chief Minister being superior to the Minister in Charge may be the reviewing authority under clause f of Rule 2
1039D E 41 Rules 5 6 6A and 7 of the All India Services Confidential Rolls Rules require that the whole process from the writing of the confidential reports assessing the perform ance character conduct and qualities of every member of the service to the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months
In the instant case the adverse remarks were communicated after 27 months
1040F G 42 The whole subject of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to im prove his performance conduct or character as the case may be and this object would be lost if they are communicated to the officer concerned after an inordinate delay
Adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment but really should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career
1041A B 43 Rules 5 6 6A and 7 are directory and not mandatory but that does not mean that the directory provisions need not be complied with even substantially
But where compliance after an inordinate delay would be against the spirit and object of the directory provision such compliance would not be substantial compliance
1041C D 44 While the provisions of Rules 5 6 6A and 7 require that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months this period cannot be 1033 stretched to twenty seven months simply because these rules are directory without serving any purpose consistent with the spirit and objective of these Rules
1041D E