Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled Tuesday that rigorous imprisonment of more than a month invokes compulsory dismissal under the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) 1934—with no room for authorities to choose lesser penalties like compulsory retirement.
The order is likely to end what is termed as Haryana Police’s “habit of backdoor mercy” for convicted policemen by allowing compulsory retirement instead of dismissal. The Punjab Police Rules are applicable to the state of Haryana as well.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, came on separate petitions filed by two Haryana Police officers.
In one matter, the judge stressed on compulsory dismissal under police rules if accused was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of more than a month.
In the other, the order said the state home department and secretary enjoy overriding powers over the Director General of Police (DGP) or officers working under him, thus narrowing down the ambit of “review” powers of the police. It held that review powers are limited to original disciplinary awards, not revisionary or appellate orders, and clearly prohibited remands to lower authorities.
Also Read: HC allows survivor of alleged marital rape to terminate pregnancy — ‘reminder of trauma, agony’
The two cases
The petitions were filed by constable Krishan Kumar and constable Balwati, with the former seeking alteration of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement based on parity with co-accused who had received lenient treatment, and the latter seeking restoration of her stalled increment allowed by the home secretary but revoked again by the police superintendent.
Krishan Kumar, who joined the Haryana Police in 1985, was convicted in 2012 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, leading to his dismissal.
A custodial death in Haryana’s Sirsa district was at the centre of the case. The charges pertained to torture and murder of undertrial Ram Niwas in the course of interrogation by a team of policemen that included Kumar.
The trial court acquitted the policemen of murder charges but convicted them on the lesser charges, imposing three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Appeals against their conviction remain pending in the high court even today.
Kumar and nine colleagues were promptly dismissed from service on 16 November, 2012, under Rule 16.2(2) of PPR, which requires dismissal for rigorous imprisonment of more than one month. Appeals and revisions before the appellate authority and the DGP were dismissed.
Co-accused sub-inspector Gharsa Ram subsequently moved a mercy petition to the state government in 2013. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) converted his dismissal to compulsory retirement on grounds of “mitigating factors” such as 37 years of “clean service”, despite the three-year jail term.
Head constable Kuldeep Singh too moved a mercy petition and his dismissal was also converted to compulsory retirement, while Krishan Kumar remained dismissed.
He knocked on the high court doors, seeking parity with the others and contending that rules provide for discretion regarding “proportionality” after Supreme Court precedents such as State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh (1997), where “automatic dismissal” was disapproved of.
Delving deep into the Punjab Police Rules of colonial times—framed pre-Constitution but nevertheless “existing law”—Justice Bansal held that the Haryana amendment to Rule 16.2(2) gave no room for leniency.
“No discretion is left with the disciplinary authority,” the judge said, while dismissing the state home department’s affidavit explaining the compulsory retirement granted to the co-accused with Kumar. The affidavit invoked Supreme Court clemency on grounds of “nature of offence” and “mitigating factors”.
Justice Bansal maintained that Haryana’s amendment created a clear policy framework distinguishing between serious and minor offences.
The court said that rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month typically indicated serious misconduct, justifying mandatory dismissal.
“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 said, holding that Krishan Kumar was liable to be dismissed from service.
The court also took note of conflicting positions taken by the state home department and police department in the matter. While in the affidavit, the home secretary justified discretionary power to reduce punishment citing Supreme Court precedents, the DGP maintained that Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules made dismissal mandatory for officers sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.
Meanwhile, Balwati, a constable who joined the police service in 2003, challenged a 7 August, 2025, notice by a police superintendent withdrawing her 2023-24 increments, already regranted after she filed a plea with the state home department.
Balwati had faced stoppage of her increments in January and February 2023 for “delays” in registering a rape FIR (as investigation officer) in 2022 and an alleged lapse in another extortion case.
Her appeals and revision didn’t work for her, but mercy petitions to the government worked, which restored her increments in February this year.
However, the restoration of increments was revoked by the Rewari SP who sent her a notice in August over “non-adherence to PPR”, prompting her to approach the HC.
“The SP is obligated to adhere to and respect orders of the Home Secretary. He possesses no jurisdiction to set aside or disregard,” the high court ruled.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Punjab and Haryana high court refusing ‘seal of approval’ to live-in needs SC intervention