In The Case Of Aish Mohammad Vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Before The Honorable Supreme Court Of India

Facts of the case 

• The appellant has moved this court against an impugned order and judgement passed on 25.04.2011 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-state.
• The appellant who joined as a constable in the Haryana Police was promoted to Head Constable on 06.12.1993.
• One sub-inspector filed a complaint against the appellant which led an departmental enquiry which led his demotion to the position of constable.
• The Director General of Police vide order dated 30.10.2006 directed reconstruction of ACRs ( Annual Confidential Report). Aggrieved by which appellant filed a Civil writ petition before the High Court.
• The learned single bench allowed the petition and put forward a decision in the favour of the appellant. But this decision was set aside by the division bench vide order dated 25.04.2011 which restored the order of Director General of Police, Haryana. 

CONRENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 

• The learned counsel of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgement is unsustainable. The order of the Director General of Police was rightly set aside by the single bench. It was submitted that the DG of Police, Haryana did not have the power to review as per the Punjab Police Rules,1934.
• The learned counsel of the respondent-State submitted that the present case has been refiled after long delay of 11 years. The ground for delay is not explained by the appellant.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT.

• The apex court dismissed the appeal.
• The court observed that the learned division bench did not approached the manner in the proper manner. The court erred in understanding that it had the power to interfere in the Punjab Police Rules.
• The apex court interpreted the word ‘review’ under the Punjab Police Rules,1934. It said that today there is diverse hierarchy of posts under the Police department which is quite different from what existed at the time the Rules were framed.
• Court observed that in today’s existing hierarchy the post of inspector-general is subordinate to the post of Director-General.