The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the disciplinary punishment of stopping fifteen annual increments given to a constable for harassing and taking illegal gratification of Rs.300 from a couple, during patrolling duty at night and held that when the enquiry has been held according to the prescribed procedure, there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings and there is no material regarding mala fide on the part of the authorities and the punishment imposed is not excessive, then no interference in the impugned order.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by a constable against the dismissal order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceeding against him and punishment of stoppage of ten annual increments with permanent effect for allegedly misbehaving with a woman who was travelling with his male friend at 2 AM and taking Rs. 300 from them.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order had been passed by ignoring the illegalities and irregularities committed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issue in the right perspective, in the light of the fact that findings of Enquiry Officer proving the charge sheet against the petitioner are perverse.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that under the orders of the competent authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer after conducting a full-fledged enquiry proved the charges of misconduct against the petitioner.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the contention of the petitioner that he knew of the demand made for money, but had no alternative except to abide by the order of his senior, does not absolve him of being a co-participant in the harassment and demand of illegal gratification from a member of the public and being a member of a disciplined force, he was duty bound to maintain integrity at every step of his service, even when he was having only one year service at the relevant time.
The court stated that in the present case, a regular departmental inquiry was ordered against the petitioner and the other accused where both of them were held guilty of charges and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities to present his case and no procedural irregularities have been found in the conduct of the enquiry and the findings, as well as punishment orders, stands supported and substantiated by the evidence on record and there has been full compliance with the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play while dealing with him departmentally.
The court concluded that the present case cannot be treated as a case of no evidence qua appellant and as he was working in a team with the other accused constable, in the event of demanding illegal gratification or harassment, he would be equally responsible for the action of the team the attempt of petitioner to disassociate himself from the event, when he was a member of the patrolling party appears to be a poor defence and not substantiated in the inquiry proceedings.
Further, the court stated that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner will show, that the same is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the conscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law chose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and causing harassment.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of any merits and dismissed it, upholding the impugned order.
Case Title: Pardeep Kumar vs Union of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Case No.: CWP-37381-2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Seth
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anand Bishnoi and Mr. Prateek Mahajan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
