E-Paper
Punishment for sentenced cops: HC bench stays single-judge ruling restricting state’s powers
In his September 23 order, justice Jagmohan Bansal had ruled that the government cannot award punishment other than dismissal from service where an enrolled police officer has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed a September 23, 2025, order of a single judge that restricted the state’s powers to review and modify punishments awarded to police personnel sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of more than a month.
The state government had filed an appeal against the September 23 judgment of Justice Jagmohan Bansal, stating that ‘award’ is a term of wide amplitude and the restricted meaning assigned to it by the single judge required reconsideration.
Hearing the appeal, a division bench of justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor on November 13 stayed the directions of the single judge that a review under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules (PPR) is not maintainable against appellate or revisionary orders and the reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 of PPR has no powers to remand the matter back to the subordinate authority.
The order was on Tuesday confirmed by Haryana additional advocate general Sanjeev Kaushik ,who represented the state government before the division bench. The matter has now been listed for January 28, 2026.
In his September 23 order, justice Bansal had ruled that the government cannot award punishment other than dismissal from service where an enrolled police officer has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.
Primarily, he examined three issues -whether the government can award punishment other than dismissal from service where an enrolled cop has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month; whether review under Rule 16.28 of PPR is maintainable against appellate or revisionary orders; and whether reviewing authority has power to remand the matter back to subordinate authority?
The matter, as per high court orders, pertained to a Haryana Police constable, who along with his colleagues was booked in a 2001 first information report under Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury)and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), of the IPC.
The trial court in 2012 acquitted them of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC but convicted them under Sections 323, 342, 167 and 34. They were awarded rigorous imprisonment of three years. Their appeals against conviction are pending before the high court.
Following their conviction, the petitioner and other police officials were dismissed from service in November 2012. Appeals filed by them against the order were dismissed by the appellate authority and the revision petitions filed before the director general of police (DGP) were also dismissed.
The additional chief secretary (ACS), home, in December 2013 reduced the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement for co-accused Gharsa Ram, who had filed a mercy petition before the state government. The matter of another co-accused, Kuldeep Singh, was considered by the DGP on orders of the court who extended a similar relief on grounds of parity, subject to the outcome of petition.
Taking a cue from the orders passed in the case of Gharsa Ram and Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner filed his representation to the ACS, home, seeking the conversion of his dismissal into compulsory retirement.
This high court keeping in mind the mandate of Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) had asked home secretary to file an affidavit explaining as to how an officer who has already been convicted and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month can be compulsorily retired instead of being dismissed from service.
The home secretary, in her July 2025 affidavit, deposed that as per a Supreme Court judgment, the expression shall be dismissed must be considered in the light of nature of offence, mitigating circumstances and proportionality of punishment. There should be some discretion. The court disapproved of the automatic dismissal approach and held that the case must be evaluated on its facts and blanket mandate like Rule 16.2(2) of PPR must be interpreted harmoniously with constitutional safeguards.
In her September 2025 affidavit , the home secretary clarified since police officers were unaware of the correct rule, they filed mercy petitions which are adjudicated under Rule 16.28 as the state government has the power to review orders of the DGP under the rule.
