V.S. Aggarwal, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by Sub Inspector Devinder Kumar seeking quashing of the show cause notice dated 28.7.2000.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector on 5.8.1985. He was promoted as Sub Inspector on 2.12.1992. A charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner on two allegations : - "(i) That petitioner had allegedly registered a false case against Dharampal alias Pappu after allegedly accepting Rs. 2000/ - as illegal gratification, (ii) That the petitioner allegedly recovered Rs, I500A in Jama Talasi and only deposited Rs. 150/ - with Malkhana." An inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, He found the petitioner guilty. A show cause notice was issued by Sh. Manjit Singh Ahlawat, IPS, as to why the petitioner should not be reverted to his substantive rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. A reply was submitted by the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police instead of taking any action on the basis of the reply issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted another reply. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, on 18.9.1998 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hissar Range, Hisar. The Deputy Inspector General of Police had exonerated the petitioner from the first charge but qua the second charge held that there is a dispute whether Rs. I500/ - or Rs. 150/ - were recovered from Dharampal as Jama Talasi, Since Rs. 150/ - as Jama Talasi was not even deposited by the petitioner and on the basis of the said findings two increments of the petitioner were stopped with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Director General of Police. The said revision petition was dismissed. On 5.8.2000 the petitioner received another show cause notice from the Director General of Police under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, The petitioner assails the said show cause notice asserting that under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the Haryana State (for short "the Rule") the Director General of Police had jurisdiction to call for the awards made by their subordinates. In the present case, the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police had been upheld by the Director General of Police and, therefore, there was no order of the subordinate. Otherwise also, it is claimed that there is no power of review. The petition as such has been contested. The respondents claimed that while the petitioner was posted as Incharge Police Post, City Fatehabad, at the instance of some person a First Information Report for an offence punishable under Sections 292/294 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered, it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 1500/ - had been recovered from the Jama Talasi of accused Dharampal. Only Rs. 150A was shown to have been recovered and even the same was not deposited. Later on, said Dharampal was murdered on the railway line. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which he was found guilty. He was dismissed from service on 18.9.1998. The appeal of the petitioner had been partly accepted. The punishment was reduced to stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect. While considering the revision petition of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry file and other documents were examined. The revision petition was dismissed. Simultaneously, it was decided to take suitable action for the acts of omission and commission. It was decided to enhance the punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect to that of dismissal from service. A show cause notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner instead of filing reply had preferred to file the present writ petition.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, only one pertinent argument had been advanced. It had been argued that the petitioner had preferred a revision petition with the Director General of Police which was dismissed. According to the learned counsel, under Rule 16.28 of the Rules, Director General of Police could only review the order of the subordinates. According to the learned counsel, once the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police had merged into that of the Director Gen -eral of Police, he could not review the said order under Rule 16.28 of the Rules.;