TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a second representation or mercy petition against adverse annual confidential remarks was permissible under the governing police instructions and rules. (ii) Whether a successor authority could recall an earlier order expunging adverse remarks when that order had been made on an impermissible representation. (iii) Whether a mercy petition after rejection of appeal and revision in disciplinary proceedings was maintainable under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Issue (i): Whether a second representation or mercy petition against adverse annual confidential remarks was permissible under the governing police instructions and rules.
Analysis: The policy instructions allowed one representation to the immediate superior and, if rejected, one further representation to the next higher authority. Further consideration was confined to cases where new facts had emerged, and belated reopening of settled matters was disapproved. The later standing order reiterated that no representation against an order more than five years old could be entertained. The relevant police rules dealt with recording of annual confidential reports and comments thereon, but did not create an unrestricted right to repeated representations against adverse remarks. Where the second or further representation was made after long delay and without new material, it fell outside the permitted framework.
Conclusion: Such second or further representations were generally impermissible unless supported by new facts and made within the prescribed framework; in the appeals where the second representation was belated and unsupported, the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether a successor authority could recall an earlier order expunging adverse remarks when that order had been made on an impermissible representation.
Analysis: A predecessor's decision ordinarily is not to be reopened merely because a new incumbent takes office. That principle does not protect an order that is without jurisdiction, ultra vires, arbitrary, or passed on irrelevant considerations. Administrative orders that are legally unauthorized can be corrected after following natural justice. The Court treated the expunction orders passed on non-maintainable representations as falling within that exception.
Conclusion: The successor authority could lawfully recall expunction orders that were passed without jurisdiction or on an impermissible representation.
Issue (iii): Whether a mercy petition after rejection of appeal and revision in disciplinary proceedings was maintainable under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Analysis: Rule 16.28 concerns review of punishment proceedings and Rule 16.32 permits revision only on limited grounds such as material irregularity, fresh evidence, or a plea for mercy within the prescribed time. Once appeal and revision had been exhausted, a belated mercy petition could not be used to secure a fresh round of reconsideration in the absence of new material. Orders granting relief merely on a lenient view, despite there being no procedural infirmity, were treated as legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: A belated mercy petition after exhaustion of appeal and revision was not maintainable in the absence of fresh material or procedural irregularity; orders passed on such petitions were liable to be recalled.
Final Conclusion: The batch of matters was disposed of with mixed results: the Court upheld the recall of illegal expunction orders in most cases, but allowed the appeals where the later representation was in fact a permissible representation to a higher authority within time, and granted consequential relief in the connected compulsory retirement matter.
Ratio Decidendi: Repeated or belated challenges to adverse service remarks or disciplinary orders are not maintainable unless the governing rules or instructions expressly permit them on fresh material or within the prescribed hierarchy and time limits; orders passed without jurisdiction or on impermissible reconsideration can be withdrawn or corrected after observance of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
