RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Lal, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police takes exception to the impugned orders dated December 16, 1992 vide which he was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector as also the appellate order dated March 3, 1993 and the one passed in revision against these two orders, dated January 5, 1994, on the sole ground that the Superintendent of Police, who passed order dated December 16, 1992 was neither his appointing/promoting authority nor had he actually promoted him. In fact, he was promoted vide order, Annexure P.7 dated October 9, 1989 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon and it is only the DIG who could revert him from the post of Sub Inspector. Order, Annexure P.1 was passed against the petitioner and one Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh challenged the said order as also the orders rendered in the appeal and revision preferred by him vide separate writ petition bearing No. 14554 of 1994 which came up for final disposal before a Division Bench on January 25, 1995. The following order was passed:-

(2.) As is manifest from the order, reproduced above, the position in law was conceded by learned counsel representing the State and the Division Bench also relied upon a Judgment of this Court in 1989(2) RSJ 536. This matter has, however, been contested on the sole ground that under Rule 12.1 of the Punjab Police Rules the appointing authority of a Sub Inspector is Superintendent of Police. The precise contention, as has been raised by learned counsel for the State, was also noticed in Karnail Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1989 2 SLR 345 and was repelled. It has been observed that ''After careful consideration I find that this contention cannot be accepted in the present case as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector as well as Sub Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. No doubt the Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors as provided under Rule 12.1. however, this rule provides the authorities competent to make appointments. There is a separate chapter dealing with the promotions i.e. Chapter XIII in the Police Rules. Rule 13.3(2) empowers the Deputy Inspector General of Police to make promotions to the rank of Inspectors. It also provides for substantive promotions to the rank of Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors to be made by Superintendent of Police in the case of District Police. Rule 13.4(2) provides for officiating promotions to the rank of Sub Inspector, Assistant Sub Inspector and Head Constables to be made by Superintendent of Police in the District and if the Deputy Inspector General of Police finds the flow of promotion unevenly distributed amongst District, he can make suitable transfers. The relevant rules concerning the case in hand are Rule 13.9 and 13.10. This gives power to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for making officiating or substantive promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13.9 further provides for making substantive promotion of Assistant Sub Inspectors by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in accordance with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13.4. Rule 13.10 further provides for officiating promotion of short duration to be ordinarily made within the District concerned vide Sub-rule 13.4(2) but vacancies of long duration are to be filled by the promotion of any eligible man in the range at the discretion of the Deputy Inspector General.'' We are in complete agreement with the view expressed in Karnail Singh's case and on parity of reasoning, mentioned therein, allow this petition and quash the impugned orders, Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.3. It shall, however, be open to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to consider and pass fresh orders. Parties are left to bear their own costs.