Chandigarh: A week after DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar challenged the Central Bureau of Investigation’s jurisdiction over him, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday pressed both sides to clarify a fundamental issue: Whose officer is an IPS officer, and who ultimately authorises action against him?
During the morning session, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry sought the text of the All India Services Act and related service rules to determine the chain of authority. The judges noted that while state governments may begin disciplinary proceedings, the question of the “final approving authority” remained central to the dispute.
Senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai, representing Bhullar, maintained that the DIG is part of the Punjab cadre and therefore falls squarely under the administrative control of the Punjab government. He pointed out that when action is sought against any IAS officer serving in the state, the sanction process flows through Punjab, not the Centre. “Sanction must come from the authority under whose service the officer is placed,” Rai argued.
The Bench is expected to continue hearing the matter after lunch.
Underlying jurisdictional puzzle
The case has brought back into focus a long-debated issue: How far can the CBI stretch its investigative powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, particularly within the Union Territory of Chandigarh, which serves as the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana?
During the earlier hearing, Bhullar’s legal team—comprising Rai along with advocates Sangram Singh Saron and Arjun Singh Rai—argued that the CBI’s remit in Chandigarh extends only to Central government employees. They cited Section 5 of the DSPE Act, which requires a specific order from the Central government before granting the CBI authority over any additional territory or category of officials.
According to the defence, the only operative notification from the Centre empowers the agency to act against Central employees serving in Chandigarh. Extending that power to state officers, they warned, would effectively transform the CBI into a de facto vigilance body for Punjab and Haryana—an outcome the law never intended.
The court’s ruling on this threshold issue of jurisdiction may determine whether the CBI can proceed further against DIG Bhullar—or whether the matter remains strictly within the state’s disciplinary framework.
