Supreme Court clarifies review powers of police authorities in service matters: Aish Mohammad vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 14 June 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 557
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a higher police authority review an order passed by a lower authority, especially when a civil court has already considered the matter? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a police officer’s service record. This judgment clarifies the extent of review powers within the police hierarchy and the impact of civil court observations on departmental proceedings. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Aish Mohammad, joined the Haryana Police as a Constable on January 15, 1973, and was promoted to Head Constable on December 6, 1993. Following a complaint by Assistant Sub-Inspector Basant Pal, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The inquiry found him guilty, resulting in his reversion from Head Constable to Constable. This order was later modified to a stoppage of one increment by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range on April 28, 2001.

Adverse remarks were recorded against the appellant in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the periods between October 11, 1999, to March 31, 2000, and April 1, 2000, to December 29, 2000. While his initial representations against these remarks were rejected, a subsequent representation for the latter period was partially accepted on July 20, 2002. A second consolidated representation was accepted on January 28, 2005, following a civil court order.

The Civil Judge (Junior Division) had set aside the stoppage of one increment on September 27, 2004, but did not expunge the adverse remarks, granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh representation. Following this, the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, expunged all adverse remarks on January 28, 2005. However, the Director General of Police, Haryana, issued a show-cause notice on September 5, 2006, questioning the expunction of remarks and proposing compulsory retirement. This led to the Director General of Police ordering a reconstruction of the ACRs on October 30, 2006.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the order of the Director General of Police dated October 30, 2006, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 19128 of 2006 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. During the pendency of this petition, he received a retirement notice, informing him that his service was no longer required beyond the age of 55 years. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on January 27, 2010, quashing the order for reconstruction of the adverse ACRs and compulsory retirement, and held that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The Single Judge relied on the judgments in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199, and Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 724, and Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. C.C.E. (1990) 2 SCC 324, holding that a successor officer cannot review an order passed by a predecessor.

The respondent-State appealed against this decision. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal on April 25, 2011, setting aside the Single Judge’s judgment and restoring the Director General of Police’s order. This decision of the Division Bench is the subject of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, particularly Rule 16.28, which deals with the powers to review proceedings. Rule 16.28(1) states:

“The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders.”

The Supreme Court noted that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 is a misnomer, as it actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate, and not the power of the same authority to re-examine its own order. The court also highlighted that the rules were framed in 1934 and have not been updated to reflect the current hierarchy of the police force, where the Director General of Police is the highest authority, and the Inspector General of Police is subordinate to them.

The Court also considered the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, which provide for compulsory retirement of employees under certain conditions, and the constitutional powers of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227, and the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the Single Judge’s order.
• The appellant contended that the Director General of Police did not have the power to review the order of the Inspector General of Police, who had expunged the adverse remarks.
• The appellant asserted that the Director General of Police’s order was against the principles laid down in previous judgments, which held that a successor officer cannot review the orders of a predecessor.
• The appellant argued that the Inspector General of Police had rightly expunged the adverse remarks, especially since the Civil Court had allowed him to make a fresh representation.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 11 years.
• The respondents contended that the Inspector General of Police could not have overreached the judgment of the Civil Court, which had refused to expunge the adverse remarks.
• The respondents submitted that the adverse entries in the appellant’s ACR were due to serious charges, including corruption, insubordination, and dereliction of duty.
• The respondents argued that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require the application of natural justice principles.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the Director General of Police, Haryana, had the power to review the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, expunging the adverse remarks from the appellant’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The judgments in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199, and Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 724, and Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. C.C.E. (1990) 2 SCC 324, which were relied upon by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, were distinguished by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that these judgments were not applicable in the present case as the Director General of Police was not reviewing his own order, but correcting an order passed by a subordinate authority. The Court clarified that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is a misnomer and refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the judgment in High Court of Tripura v Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663, stating that the present case did not involve the exceptional circumstances where a court could interfere in the absence of a specific provision.
• The Supreme Court referred to B S Hari Commandant v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413 and Sanjay Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 610, to emphasize the special nature of the High Courts as constitutional courts.
• The Court interpreted Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, clarifying that it allows a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate, and not the same authority to review its own order.
• The Court referred to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, which provides for compulsory retirement of employees under certain conditions.
• The Court referred to the Government Letter No. 2784-3S-70 dated 22.03.1971, which clarified that a second representation against adverse remarks is not maintainable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Hierarchy and Authority: The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the hierarchy within the police force. It held that the Director General of Police, as the superior authority, had the power to correct the erroneous order of the Inspector General of Police.
• Misinterpretation of ‘Review’: The Court clarified that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is a misnomer and actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate.
• Improper Expunction: The Court found that the Inspector General of Police had improperly expunged the adverse remarks, as it amounted to a review of an earlier order passed by his predecessor.
• Civil Court’s Observation: The Court clarified that the civil court’s observation allowing the appellant to make a fresh representation did not grant him the right to approach the same authority again.
• Integrity in Service: The Court noted that adverse remarks relating to integrity and conduct in a uniformed service like the police are to be judged by the superior authorities.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a strong emphasis on the correct interpretation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and the powers of superior authorities. The Court also considered the factual context of the case, but the legal aspects weighed more heavily in its decision.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the Inspector General of Police was permitted to expunge the remarks because the civil court had allowed a fresh representation. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the civil court’s observation did not grant carte blanche to approach the same authority again. The Court emphasized that the Inspector General of Police had effectively reviewed an order passed by his predecessor, which is not permissible under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Court also noted that the Director General of Police, as a superior authority, was correct in taking action to rectify the situation.

The Court’s decision is that the Director General of Police was correct in issuing a show-cause notice to the appellant and directing reconstruction of the ACRs. The Court held that the Inspector General of Police had improperly expunged the adverse remarks, and the Director General of Police, as a superior authority, was correct in taking action to rectify the situation.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with Justice Vikram Nath concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving service matters in the police force. It clarifies the extent of review powers within the police hierarchy and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the hierarchy and integrity of the service. The judgment also underscores that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is a misnomer and actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate. This clarification will prevent confusion in future cases and ensure that the correct procedure is followed in service matters.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it clarified the existing legal position regarding the powers of review and the interpretation of Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Court’s analysis of the term ‘review’ and its application in the context of the police hierarchy is a significant contribution to the understanding of service law.

“…the factual premise noted by the learned Single Judge itself was wrong, inasmuch as it was the Inspector General of Police, who had, in effect, ‘reviewed’ an order passed by his predecessor-in-office by expunging the adverse remarks, which was previously declined by his predecessor-in-office.”

“Clearly, the ‘ review’ contemplated in Rule 16.28 empowers a superior authority to ‘ call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. ’ As such, the ‘ review’ is by a superior authority and not the same authority.”

“…any order which amounts to ‘review’ (in the legal sense of the word) of an earlier order by the same authority cannot be undertaken, unless specifically so conferred by the relevant statute.”

Key Takeaways

• Hierarchy in Police Force: The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the hierarchy within the police force. Superior authorities have the power to correct the erroneous orders of subordinate authorities.
• Clarification of ‘Review’: The term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate, and not the same authority to re-examine its own order.
• No Review by Same Authority: An authority cannot review its own order unless specifically authorized by statute.
• Adverse Remarks: Adverse remarks relating to integrity and conduct in a uniformed service like the police are to be judged by the superior authorities.
• Civil Court Observations: Observations made by a civil court do not grant carte blanche to approach the same authority again, especially when the authority had already refused the relief.

The judgment has a significant impact on the service conditions of police personnel in Haryana and Punjab. It clarifies the extent of review powers within the police hierarchy and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the hierarchy and integrity of the service. The judgment also underscores that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is a misnomer and actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate. This clarification will prevent confusion in future cases and ensure that the correct procedure is followed in service matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that copies of the judgment be communicated to:

• The Chief Secretaries, Governments of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
• The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab.
• The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Haryana.
• The Directors General of Police, Punjab and Haryana.

The Court also directed that steps be taken to update/amend the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, to reflect the correct official description of posts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the term ‘review’ in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is a misnomer and actually refers to the power of a superior authority to examine the orders of a subordinate, and not the same authority to re-examine its own order. This clarifies the powers of review within the police hierarchy and ensures that the correct procedure is followed in service matters. The Supreme Court did not change the previous position of law but clarified the interpretation of the term review as used in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court clarified that the Director General of Police was correct in issuing a show-cause notice to the appellant and directing reconstruction of the ACRs. The Court held that the Inspector General of Police had improperly expunged the adverse remarks, and the Director General of Police, as a superior authority, was correct in taking action to rectify the situation. The judgment clarifies the extent of review powers within the police hierarchy and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the hierarchy and integrity of the service.