In the case of Aish Mohammed vs State of Haryana and Ors. the remarks were made while upholding a 2011 Punjab & Haryana High Court decision that authorised the discharge of a constable from service. The petitioner had failed in an earlier round of action before a district judge to have disparaging words about him removed from his yearly private reports. But in 2005, the Gurgaon Range Inspector General of Police (IGP) revoked all of the incriminating comments. This went against his predecessor’s choice and was in review. The policeman received a show-cause notice from the Haryana DGP in 2006 that claimed further promotions were not warranted due to the constable receiving an unauthorised advantage. When he turned 55 and began to retire in December 2008, the Nuh and Pawal Superintendents of Police informed him that his skills were no longer needed. The High Court’s retiral ruling was quashed by a single judge, but it was later reinstated by a division bench, giving rise to the current appeal.
Analysis of Court decision
Supreme Court Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, sitting as a divisional bench, ordered the Punjab and Haryana governments to take action to revise the 1934 Punjab Police Rules in light of changes in the organisation of the police service. The bench declared that ‘incongruities’ have developed within the Rules as a result of passing time, both legally and factually.
The supreme court observed that the Inspector General’s (IG) power was referred to in the Rules as the highest, as it was at the time of its adoption under colonial administration. Today, however, the Director General of Police (DGP) has the aforementioned post. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the IGP’s initial order against the appellant could only have been “reviewed” by a superior.
The relevant rule establishing the review powers, according to the bench, was likewise misnamed. The court further stated that although it is evident that the word “review” has a particular meaning to a mind that has studied law or the judiciary, this is not the case in this instance. Simply put, a review is a second look at an order issued by the same body that issued the first one, whether that body is a court or an executive officer. The headline of the regulation above is misleading because no “review” power is granted or created. Consequently, the IGP’s ability to consider this case was wholly arbitrary.
The appellant may have had some cause to contact the Haryana DGP, but not the IGP again, the top court said. As a result, the Director General of Police had every authority to demonstrate cause and act against the appellant. The subsequent action, in our opinion, cannot be deemed to be arbitrary or shocking the Court’s conscience enough to warrant intervening when the sequence of events is taken into account. A person in uniformed services, such as a police officer, must have any negative entries about their character and integrity judged by the superior authority(ies) who record and approve such entries. Therefore, the appeal was not considered.