Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 Date of decision: 6th April, 2010 Raj Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No. Present: Mr. G.S.Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli. D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. Surya Kant, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner is serving as a constable in P.A.P.No.13/564, 13th Battalian, Punjab Police, Chandigarh. He was charge sheeted on the allegation of remaining absent from duty for 106 days. The Departmental enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charges. After following the due procedure, the Commandant 13th Battalian, P.A.P. Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh, imposed the punishment of stoppage of Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 -2- three annual increments with permanent effect, vide impugned order dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-1). 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.P. IInd Training, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), though, held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct but reduced the sentence from stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect to the temporary effect. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt, suo-moto invoked his powers under 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules and reviewed/re-called the above mentioned order dated 30.08.2006 of Deputy Inspector General of Police, and upheld the original order of Commandant 13th Battalian, P.A.P, vide impugned order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioner preferred a revision petition which has been dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-4). 5. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. 6. Two fold contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is urged that powers under rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules could not be invoked by the Inspector General of Police as only one 'Review' was permissible which had already been made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 -3- while passing the order dated 13.08.2006 while exercising his powers as the appellate authority. Secondly, the purported suo- moto powers have been exercised without observing the principles of natural justice. 7. In my considered view, both the contentions are legally misconceived and factually incorrect. Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules reads as follows:- “16.28. Powers to review proceedings:- (1) The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector General, and a Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by their subordinate and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing order. (The State Government may also call for the records and review the awards made by the Inspector General of Police, or by any other authority subordinate to him). (2) If an award of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall state whether it is to be regarded as suspension followed by reinstatement or not. The order should also state whether service previous to dismissal should count for pension or not. Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 -4- (3) If all cases in which officers propose to enhance an award they shall, before passing final orders give the defaulter concerned an opportunity of showing cause either personally or in writing, why his punishment should not be enhanced.” 8. As may be seen, the Inspector General of Police is competent to call for the records of awards made by his subordinate and he can confirm, enhance, modify or annul the order of punishment. The petitioner's contention that the order dated 13.08.2006 was passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police while 'reviewing' the original order, has no basis as the said order was passed on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. The action taken against the petitioner by the Inspector General of Police, thus, falls within the ambit of 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules. 9. As regards the second plea, namely non-observance of principles of natural justice, it is evident from the impugned order dated 15.07.2008 that before invoking the power of review as envisaged under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, a show cause notice dated 29.05.2008 was sent to the delinquent official. The fact that the petitioner do not avail that opportunity is inconsequential. 11. Otherwise also, the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect for remaining absent Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 2009 -5- from duty for 106 days and that too by when the petitioner is a member of Police force expected to maintain law and order, is neither arbitrary nor calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 12. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed. [SURYA KANT] 6th April, 2010 JUDGE Shivani Kaushik