Punjab Police Rules| State Can't Award Punishment Other Than Dismissal Where Police Officer Is Sentenced To Over 1 Month R.I : P&H High Court

In a detailed judgment interpreting the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (PPR), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State government cannot impose any punishment other than dismissal from service in cases where a police officer has been sentenced to more than one month of rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized that the Rules leave no discretion with the disciplinary authority in such circumstances.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal referring to sub-rule (2) PPR 16.2 (2), said, "No discretion is left with the disciplinary authority if an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than one month. Rigorous imprisonment of more than one month ordinarily means the accused has committed some serious offence. It is well known that getting FIR registered and particularly against an enrolled police officer is an arduous task."

The Court further added that, "Percentage of conviction in India is also very low. In such circumstances, conviction of a police officer and thereafter sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month means some serious offence on the part of an officer."

Observing that the Rule to dismiss such Police Officer is mandatory, it said, "The authorities are bound to act as per mandate of Rules. The authorities can exercise discretion in case of directory provision whereas in case of mandatory provision, the authorities cannot exercise discretion."

State's Power Of Review Cannot Be Exercised Against Appellate Or Revisionary Orders

Referring to Rule 16.32 and amendment made in 1996, the Court explained that, "State Government can act as revisionary authority against orders of IGP/DGP, however, cannot act as reviewing authority. This fact is further supported with 2017 Rules which clearly provide that revision would lie before State Government where DGP acts as an appellate authority e.g. appellate authority of Inspector is DGP and revision lies before State Government."

"As per amended Rule 16.28, the State Government has got power to review awards of IGP and officers subordinate to him. At the time of amendment of Rule 16.28, IGP was head of the Police Force. He may act as disciplinary authority because Rule 16.1(2) provides that order of punishment may be passed by the officers mentioned in the Table or by any officer of higher rank, meaning thereby, power of DIG to inflict punishment may be exercised by IGP", it added.

Justice Bansal explained that the State Government appoints DGP and other officers who exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed. The State Government as per Rule 16.28 is empowered to review orders of IGP and officers subordinate to him means State Government can review even order of SP or DIG.

"The intention is only to empower the State Government to correct mistake committed by SP/DIG/IGP as disciplinary authority. There was no reason to empower State Government to review order of SP if object was to entertain review even against appellate and revisionary orders," the Court opined.

Reviewing Authority Has No Power To Remand The Matter Back To Subordinate Authority

The Court further observed that as per Rule 16.28 the reviewing authority has power to confirm, enhance, modify or annul the award. The Reviewing Authority is also empowered to conduct further investigation or direct to be made before passing orders.

It pointed that during last one year, the Court has noticed that reviewing authority is remanding the matters back to Appellate/Revisionary Authorities.

"The reviewing authority has power to confirm, enhance, modify or annul the award, however, there is no power to remand. In the absence of specific provision/power, the reviewing authority has no power to remand the matter back to authority below it," said the judge.

The bench noted that the Legislature has not empowered the reviewing authority with power to remand because reviewing authority is endowed with power to make further investigation.

"It means reviewing authority if finds any deficiency in the enquiry or orders of disciplinary authority, it may conduct investigation and based on its outcome pass order."

However, it added that the authorities do not carry inherent powers and cannot exercise power which is not vested in them. The Legislature has not vested reviewing authority with power to remand though power to conduct investigation has been conferred.

The Court concluded that reviewing authority should not remand the matter. In case of doubt, it should conduct investigation and thereafter pass final order.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 393

 Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-14996-2025)

Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-23420-2025)

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G, Haryana with Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana

Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

Title: KRISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Click here to read/download the order