CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 02-05-2011 Lady Assistant Sub Inspector Urmila ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2009 by which de novo inquiry has been ordered to be initiated. The petitioner alongwith another employee faced departmental inquiry on the allegations of improper investigation and their acts of omission and commission pertaining to the case registered vide FIR no.2 dated 22.1.2006 under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 IPC. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner while L/ASI Rajesh Lata was indicted. Upon the exoneration of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat accepted the report agreeing with the report of the inquiry officer and observed that the petitioner being a part of the disciplinary force has shown great sincerity and integrity towards her duty by following orders of the higher officials and keeping in view her long service and good service record and also keeping in view her family welfare by taking a CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 2 sympathetic view directed the filing of departmental inquiry. The other co- employee namely Rajesh Lata was issued a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority. She responded thereto and at the same time reported to the higher authority i.e. Additional Deputy General of Police highlighting her grievance that she had been wrongly held guilty by the inquiry officer. The Additional Deputy General of Police by virtue of the impugned order accepted the representation by exercising his power of review and by giving reasons observed that the inquiry officer has omitted to take into consideration numerous factors and thus ordered de novo inquiry so as to come to the right conclusion. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order on following counts:- (i)that the order has been passed by an authority which was not having the jurisdiction to do so as Rule 16.28 envisages the passing of the order by the Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police but since the Additional Deputy General of Police falls in neither of these three categories, the order was passed without any jurisdiction. (ii)that Rule 16.28 contemplates the passing of an award which can be reviewed by the said authorities and in the absence of any such order no power of review could be exercised. (iii)and lastly, it has been contended that the order exonerating the petitioner passed by the Punishing Authority has not been considered and neither any show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 3 been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who have stated that no prejudice is to be caused to the petitioner in the event of de novo inquiry being conducted. They have further contended that rules contemplates the order being passed by the Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police but such power can be exercised even suo moto if it comes to the notice of these authorities that some irregularities have been committed or some material has been ignored. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not in any way prejudiced if the complete inquiry is conducted afresh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case reveal that the allegations against the petitioner as also the co-employee were extremely serious as they were accused of doing acts of omission which ultimately could have the impact on the trial in a case with serious implications with the allegations of abduction and rape. The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat before whom the inquiry report was to be submitted for approval or rejection as the case may have been has surprisingly passed two sets of orders; one which is prior in time i.e 3.2.2009 vide which he issued show cause notice to respondent no.6 asking her to explain what she had to say about the findings of the inquiry officer against her and the other Annexure P-3 which has been passed in April, 2009 accepting the inquiry report qua the petitioner and while doing so, the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat made the following observations:- “Therefore, after considering all the documents on record, the reply submitted by delinquents to EO and statements of prosecution and defence witnesses, again in depth and by CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 4 agreeing with the reports submitted by enquiry officer I hereby reach to the conclusion that delinquent W/ASI Urmila 789/S, being part of a disciplined force has shown great sincerity and integrity towards her duty by following the orders of higher officials. Therefore, by keeping in view long service rendered by delinquent W/ASI Urmila 789/S and her good service record and facts regarding the family welfare, by taking sympathetic view orders are hereby passed to file the departmental enquiry, which is in interest of justice.” What concerns the Court is that if the inquiry report was being evaluated by the concerned authority why is it that he resorted to deal the cases of the petitioner as also of the respondent no.6 by separate orders when it was possible and more plausible if he had merely dealt with the entire matter comprehensively i.e accepting inquiry qua the petitioner and deciding to proceed by accepting the inquiry findings qua respondent no.6 and what is also interesting is that even while accepting the inquiry report in favour of the petitioner, he showers words of praise which were unnecessary considering the fact that the petitioner had been exonerated and no reasoning had to be given much less the reasoning of appreciation in favour of the petitioner. In the impugned order Annexure P-4 the Additional Inspector General of Police has noticed some factors which were not addressed by the Inquiry Officer. The grievance of the petitioner has to be viewed in the backdrop of the facts of the case. Rule 16.28 talks of the power to review to be exercised by the Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, who have the power to call the awards made by their subordinates and confirm, modify, CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 5 enhance, annul the same or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. Rule 16.28 is extracted herebelow:- “16.28 Power to review proceedings – (1) The Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General and a Superintendent of Police may call for the record of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify, annul the same, make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. The State Government may also call for the record and review the awards made by the Inspector General of Police Punjab or by any other authority subordinate to him.” The important facet of this rule is to ensure proper appreciation of the controversy which may be tested before them and the underlying principle of the same is to ensure fairness to eradicate any mis-chief at any level. The words used in the beginning lines of the rule encompasses three authorities ranging from Superintendent of Police to Inspector General of Police who may test the awards made by their subordinates. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed by Additional Deputy General of Police who is superior in rank to the Superintendent of Police but inferior to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). The petitioner thus cannot claim any prejudice on this count for the reason that if Superintendent of Police had been empowered to do likewise then merely because a superior authority has done so, would not make any difference to the case unless the petitioner demonstrates any prejudice caused to her case. The rule also reflects and has been adequately titled as power to review proceedings which power of review in procedural matters is to be construed as a CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 6 handmaiden of justice and if at any stage of the proceedings such authority feels that there has been mis-appreciation or erroneous applicability of any material or for that purpose any omission then such authorities in order to rectify the aforesaid lapse are empowered to even order further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders implying thereby that the power is wide enough to even permit them to interfere before any “award” has been made. Needless to say that such orders are to be supported by reasons and should not be cryptic and should be able to withstand judicial scrutiny. The words “confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders” thus has a very vide connotation which suggests that before passing an order pertaining to the confirmation of any order passed upon to these authorities to make an attempt to get to the bottom of the affairs so as to unveil the truth. As observed earlier, the facts suggest that the allegations against the petitioner and the co-employee were extremely serious and if the same had gone unnoticed it could have resulted in possible subversion of the trial of the case and if for uncovering such truth a de novo inquiry has been ordered, the petitioner cannot claim any prejudice on this count. Of course, in the given set of circumstances, it would have been more appropriate for the Additional Deputy General of Police to take into consideration the order passed in favour of the petitioner as well before deciding to order de novo inquiry, hence, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Deputy General of Police for re-consideration and while doing so, he may also keep in mind the fact that the issue involves serious ramifications where subversion of the trial could have taken place and CWP No.2175 of 2010 (O&M) 7 keeping in view this fact, he may proceed to determine the issues before him which may be done within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Disposed of. May 2, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge