Finding Laika: How a lost and found service dog prompted Punjab and Haryana High Court to rule on offence, punishment

In its December 24 order, the high court modified the punishment imposed on the head constable from forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect to forfeiture of two increments with temporary effect.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the service dog, Laika, was lost during a marriage in the neighbourhood, when she managed to free herself. (Image is enhanced using AI)

The court noted that the service dog, Laika, was lost during a marriage in the neighbourhood when she managed to free herself. A month later, Laika was allegedly recovered from a private individual.

“There was a minor lapse on the part of the petitioner; however, the punishment awarded was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct,” the court said.

Singh challenged the disciplinary authority’s order imposing forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect, which was subsequently reduced by the appellate authority to forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.

Finding that the authorities had passed the orders “mechanically”, the court also noted that no action was taken against the “kennel man’, a constable who was having the custody of the service animal.

It was also placed on record that Singh was not found guilty of the loss of the service animal, but only for not informing his seniors at the earliest.

Justice Bansal decided not to remand the matter to the authorities for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment, emphasising that nearly two decades had already passed.

‘Common feature in last 50 years’

Justice Bansal highlighted, with reference to the “Chapter on Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution since 1950”, that Indian courts did not suffer from a “disability” as experienced by English courts in declaring legislation unconstitutional on the principle of proportionality.

“Ever since 1950, the principle of ‘proportionality’ has indeed been applied vigorously to legislative and administrative action in India,” the order read.

Pointing out that scrutiny of proportionality vis-à-vis legislation has been a “common feature” in the High Courts and the Supreme Court over the last fifty years, the court observed that thousands of cases have been decided examining the principles of proportionality, fundamental rights, and the quantum of punishment.

Arguments

Appearing for Singh, advocate Tapan Kumar argued that there was neither any lapse on the part of his client nor was he found guilty of the loss of the service animal.

Kumar further contended that the punishment awarded by the concerned authority was disproportionate to the alleged offence.

However, additional advocate general Rajni Gupta, appearing for the State, contended that there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the concerned authorities.