The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that forfeiting 10 annual increments of a police constable for being absent from duty for just one day is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
"By no means or reasons, awarded punishment can be called proportionate to alleged misconduct," remarked Justice Jagmohan Bansal.
The Court observed that the absence was only for 24 hours and 20 minutes, and there were no serious public issues or hostile situations at the officer's posting that would justify such a harsh penalty.
Read Also:- Allahabad HC Grants Bail to BJP Leader Accused of Brutal Murder in Agra
“In the absence of peculiar circumstances, the respondent was bound to award punishment proportionate to alleged offence.” – Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Background
The petitioner, Satyaveer Singh, was serving as a Constable in the Haryana Police in 2015. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of short absence from duty, and he was initially dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Rewari.
Read Also:- Denial of Public Job Due to Hepatitis B Illegal, Violates Article 14: Kerala High Court
Upon appeal, the punishment was modified by the Inspector General of Police, who converted the dismissal into the forfeiture of 10 increments with permanent effect. A revision was later filed before the Director General of Police but was dismissed without detailed reasoning.
The High Court, after reviewing the matter, found that the authorities acted mechanically, and their orders lacked proper application of mind.
"There are all possibilities that remand would multiply the litigation." – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Keeps Stay Order on PMLA Case Against M3M Director in Abeyance Till July 30
Due to the 10-year delay in the case, the Court decided not to send it back for reconsideration and instead directly modified the punishment to forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect.
Legal View
The Court referred to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, applicable to Haryana, which allows dismissal only in cases of gravest misconduct or continued behavior proving unfitness for service. The judge emphasized that authorities must consider the length of service and pension rights while deciding dismissal.
“Punishment should be commensurate to alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should be followed.” – Justice Jagmohan Bansal
The Court also reiterated that disproportionate punishment violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law.
Observation on Conduct of Authorities
The Court criticized the casual manner in which the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities handled the case. It pointed out that even though there was a delay of only four months, the Director General of Police dismissed the revision mechanically, without applying proper judicial reasoning.
“Despite small period of delay, the revision was dismissed mechanically.” – P&H High Court
Considering all aspects, the Court reduced the punishment to forfeiture of only one increment and disposed of the plea.
Advocates appearing in the case:
- For petitioner: Mr. Vipin Yadav and Mr. J.S. Johal
- For the State: Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana
