Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Rigorous Dismissal Rule for Convicted Police Officers
Court Dismisses Plea for Compulsory Retirement in Case of Rigorous Imprisonment Exceeding One Month
Chandigarh: In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the stringent provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana, mandating the dismissal of enrolled police officers sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, dismissed the plea of Krishan Kumar @ Krishan Lal and others, who sought conversion of their dismissal from service into compulsory retirement.
The petitioners, former police officials of Haryana, were convicted under Sections 323, 342, 167, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Following their conviction, they were dismissed from service, in accordance with Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana. The rule explicitly states that an officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month "shall" be dismissed, leaving no room for discretion.
Despite this provision, the petitioners argued for leniency based on the precedent set in the cases of their co-accused, where the punishment was reduced from dismissal to compulsory retirement due to "manifestly extenuating circumstances." The petitioners contended that the principle of parity necessitated a similar consideration in their case.
In response, the Home Secretary of Haryana had filed an affidavit suggesting that the word "shall" in Rule 16.2(2) should not be interpreted as mandating automatic dismissal in all circumstances, referencing a Supreme Court ruling in 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dharam Singh', which argued for a more discretionary approach taking into account the nature of the offence, mitigating circumstances, and the principle of proportionality in punishment.
However, the High Court, led by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, emphasized that under the amended Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana, there is no discretion for authorities to impose a punishment other than dismissal when an officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for more than one month. The court underscored that the rule is mandatory, leaving no room for alternative punishments under the circumstances described.
Moreover, the court ruled that the reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules does not have the power to review appellate or revisionary orders or to remand matters back to subordinate authorities. The scope of Rule 16.28 is restricted to reviewing original disciplinary awards, not orders passed upon appeal or revision.
The judgment reaffirms the mandatory nature of the dismissal rule for severe misconduct leading to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures while considering any potential mitigating factors, emphasizing that any deviation must align with constitutional safeguards and be supported by compelling reasons.
Bottom Line:
Under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana), an enrolled police officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month is mandatorily liable to be dismissed from service. Reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 cannot review appellate or revisionary orders, nor does it have the power to remand matters back to subordinate authorities.
Statutory provision(s): Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.2(2), Rule 16.28, Rule 16.30, Rule 16.32
Krishan Kumar @ Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2783017
