IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18687 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: January 15, 2008 Parties Name Mahi Pal ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated October 21, 2006 (Annexure P-11), passed by respondent No. 2, vide which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been restored by withdrawing order dated June 14, 2004. It is primary contention of counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed by respondent No. 2, who has no power to review the order, passed by his predecessor. It is apparent from the records that departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner for acts of commission and omission in the year 1995 and on receipt of Enquiry Officer's report, the punishing authority, on May 14, 1996, imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by D.I.G. Gurgaon Range on August 21, 1998. Petitioner then CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18687 OF 2006 -2- filed a revision, which was allowed on the ground that the order of punishment was not sustainable because along with the show cause notice for imposition of major penalty, a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Vide order dated July 14, 1999, liberty was granted to the punishing authority to pass fresh order and accordingly show cause notice dated February 3, 2000, was issued to the petitioner for imposition of major penalty and after receipt of objections, filed by the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated April 21, 2000. Petitioner went in appeal, which was partly allowed on January 28, 2002, and punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed revision petition before Inspector General of Police, who, while exercising the powers of Director General of Police, dismissed that revision petition vide order dated September 9, 2002 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner kept mum and somewhere in the year 2004, he filed second revision petition, under the garb of a mercy petition before Director General of Police , who allowed the same on June 14, 2006 (Annexure P-7) alternating the punishment awarded to the petitioner to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. When this order came to the notice of the authorities concerned, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on August 18, 2006, proposing to withdraw order dated June 14, 2006, on the ground that the second revision petition was not competent before the same officer, who had earlier dismissed his revision petition. After receipt of his objections vide order dated October 21, 2006, order Annexure P-7 dated June 14, 2004, was set aside and order dated January 28, 2002, Annexure P-5 was restored, meaning thereby that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18687 OF 2006 -3- punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was kept intact. Hence this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant rules. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules,1934 , second revision petition was competent. We are unable to accept above said argument because reading of that rule clearly envisages that only one revision petition is competent and not the second under the garb of mercy petition. Similar matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 18889 of 2006 (Satish Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others), which was disposed of vide order dated November 30, 2006, holding that the Director General of Police was not competent to review his own order. In the present case, earlier order, dismissing revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was passed by the Inspector General of Police exercising the delegated powers of the Director General of Police. If that is so, we are of the opinion that the subsequent order passed was without any jurisdiction. In view of the ratio of the judgment in Satish Kumar's case (Supra), this writ petition is dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) January 15, 2008. Judge DKC