Home Secy has authority over DGP, rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

The ruling, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal on September 23, came while quashing a notice dated August 7, 2025, issued by an SP that sought to override a Home Department decision.

The case stemmed from a 2001 custodial violence in Dabwali, Sirsa, in which several Haryana Police personnel were accused of assaulting a detainee, wrongfully confining him, and fabricating documents to cover up the incident. In 2012, a trial court convicted them of lesser charges such as causing hurt, wrongful confinement and framing false records, sentencing them to three years’ imprisonment.

Following this, the convicted officers were dismissed from service, though some later secured relief when the Home Department reduced their dismissal to compulsory retirement.

Petitioners Krishan Kumar and Balwati argued that they had been treated unequally compared to their co-accused, who had benefited from the Home Department’s intervention. They approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking similar treatment, which ultimately led to the broader question of whether police chiefs could disregard orders of the Haryana Home Department.

The High Court said the crux of the matter lay in who holds final authority under service rules governing the police. In its ruling, the court emphasised that the Home Department has long exercised the power to review, modify or annul punishments handed down by the DGP.

‘Practice has existed since decades’

In an affidavit filed in the case, Dr Sumita Misra, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), stated: “A plain reading of the statutory provision would show that the State Government has been conferred the power to call for the records, to review the award, to confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same.”

Misra also noted that this practice has existed “since decades.”

The court endorsed this position, recording, “The mercy appeals, petitions and representations of police officials have been entertained by the State Government against the orders passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana… since decades.”

Rebuking attempts by police officers to disregard government orders, Justice Bansal wrote: “The Superintendent of Police is bound to follow and honour orders of the Home Secretary. He has no authority to set aside or ignore orders of the Home Department.”

The court also addressed the rules governing dismissal of convicted police officers. While the rule states that officers sentenced to imprisonment “shall be dismissed,” Justice Bansal pointed to Supreme Court precedent clarifying that this does not mean automatic dismissal in every case. “Some discretion must exist to consider the nature of the offence, mitigating circumstances, and proportionality of punishment,” Justice Bansal observed.

In practice, this has meant that officers with long service records or without charges of moral turpitude have sometimes been granted compulsory retirement instead of dismissal.

Krishan Kumar and Balwati will now have their dismissals converted to compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits, pending the outcome of their criminal appeals.