AISH MOHAMMAD versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

AISH MOHAMMAD versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Rule 16.28 contemplates review by a superior authority (not by the same authority or its predecessor); in the facts the Inspector General had effectively set aside his predecessor's decision by expunging adverse ACR remarks and the Director General rightly show-caused and reconstructed the ACRs leading to compulsory retirement. Considering the chain of events and statutory scheme (including Punjab Civil Services Rules r.3.26(d)), the consequential action was not arbitrary or shocking to the conscience of the Court, and interference was not warranted; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Aish Mohammad; Respondent(s): State of Haryana and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2023 / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana Dated 25.04.2011 in LPA No. 406 of 2011 (impugned Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Review Power Under Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Annual Confidential Report (acr) and Expunction of Adverse Remarks, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 R.16.28, Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934 R.3.26(d), Hierarchy of Police Authorities
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Compulsory Retirement Review Power Under Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Annual Confidential Report (acr) and Expunction of Adverse Remarks Punjab Police Rules, 1934 R.16.28 Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934 R.3.26(d) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aish Mohammad

Appellant

State of Haryana and Ors.

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2023 / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana Dated 25.04.2011 in LPA No. 406 of 2011 (impugned Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director General of Police could set aside the expunction of adverse ACR remarks effected by the Inspector General of Police and commence reconstruction leading to compulsory retirement
  2. 2 Whether the term 'review' in Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 permits the same authority to review orders passed by its predecessor-in-office or denotes review by a superior authority
  3. 3 Whether the High Court or civil court could direct fresh consideration/expunction of adverse ACR entries in absence of specific statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 16.28 contemplates review by a superior authority (not by the same authority or its predecessor); in the facts the Inspector General had effectively set aside his predecessor's decision by expunging adverse ACR remarks and the Director General rightly show-caused and reconstructed the ACRs leading to compulsory retirement. Considering the chain of events and statutory scheme (including Punjab Civil Services Rules r.3.26(d)), the consequential action was not arbitrary or shocking to the conscience of the Court, and interference was not warranted; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Instant appeal dismissed
  • Parties to bear their own costs