20 years of financial loss: Punjab and Haryana High Court slams department for police constable’s ‘casual’ punishment

Findings

• It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be incommensurate to the alleged offence.
• The principle of proportionality should be followed by all quasi- judicial and judicial authorities while awarding punishment irrespective of the nature of the offence.
• As per the principle of proportionality, even punishment prescribed by legislation must be incommensurate to the alleged offence.
• If punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The petitioner was subjected to a departmental inquiry. There were two charges against him, i.e., misbehaving with the high court and taking away a motorcycle from the police station despite being transferred.
• The inquiry officer found him innocent of both charges. He rather found the head constable guilty of lodging a false complaint.
• The inquiry officer found the petitioner innocent and the head constable guilty.
• No action was taken against the head constable; however, without recording a disagreement note, a show cause notice proposing punishment was issued.
• The petitioner was having service of 14 years to his credit. There was no bad entry in his character role or service record.
• The disciplinary authority, without examining the inquiry report, firstly issued a show cause notice and thereafter awarded punishment of forfeiture of five increments.
• It seems to be a case of casual adjudication of departmental proceedings because the alleged delinquent was a mere constable.
• The disciplinary authority casually awarded a major penalty of forfeiture of five increments, and higher authorities upheld the order of the disciplinary authority.
• It is a case of casualty and miscarriage of justice on the part of departmental authorities.

Decision

• The costs of Rs 1.10 lakh are imposed upon the department, which shall be paid to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of this order.
• He would be entitled to arrears, which shall be released within six months from today, along with interest at six per cent per annum, failing which the department shall be liable to pay nine per cent interest per annum from the expiry of said period.

Background

• The petitioner filed the plea seeking the setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect.
• The petitioner joined the police force as a constable in 1989.
• In 2002, while serving as a driver at the police station, he developed differences with the head constable and was then transferred to another police station.
• In April 2003, a fight took place between the petitioner and a head constable, and the petitioner suffered injury to his eye.
• On the behest of the head constable, the state initiated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner, alleging that he misbehaved with his senior and took away the motorcycle from the police station despite being transferred in April 2003.
• Later, in September 2003, the inquiry officer’s report concluded that the motorcycle was not taken away as per the record and logbook.
• The report stated that a complaint regarding taking away a motorcycle from the police station has been lodged by the head constable in order to save himself. It was the petitioner who suffered an injury to his eye.
• The inquiry officer only found the petitioner guilty because he did not join his posting immediately following his transfer.