Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharpoor Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 1 2023:PHHC:159636
135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-25127-2023
Date of Decision:13.12.2023
BHARPOOR SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Somesh Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents- UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-7) whereby petitioner has been
compulsorily retired from service, order dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure P-
9) whereby statutory appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and
order dated 29.08.2022 (Anneuxre P-12) whereby revision petition has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been punished on the basis of ocular evidence. There is no witness
against the petitioner and he has been punished without any evidence.
The punishment awarded is disproportionate to allegations made against
the petitioner. The petitioner was having 24 years unblemished service
record still he has been awarded stringent punishment which sounds
death knell.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 2 2023:PHHC:159636
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner
was awarded punishment on account of his involvement in a corruption
case. Proper inquiry was conducted and during the course of inquiry, the
person, from whom money was demanded by petitioner and two other
police officials, appeared before the inquiry officer as PW-2 and he
disclosed the entire incident. He identified the petitioner. Similarly
Mangat Ram @ Sonu appeared as PW-3 and identified the petitioner. He
also confirmed the alleged incident.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner and
two other police officials demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Jagdeep
Singh son of Daljit Singh. The money was paid to Inspector Anuj Kumar
Varun who on account of complaint returned the said amount to Jagdeep
Singh. Inspector Anuj Kumar Varun has been dismissed from service and
petitioner has been compulsorily retired. The petitioner is part of a
disciplined armed force. Integrity and discipline are two paramount
consideration for being part of armed force.
6. It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference
while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no
power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until
Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence.
It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the
procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 3 2023:PHHC:159636
or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or
misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by law has not been
followed, the Court can interfere. A two-judge Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with scope of interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has
held that departmental authorities are fact finding authorities. On finding
the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry,
the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate
punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of
the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its judicial
precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment in Union of India and
Others v. P. Gunasekaran. The relevant extracts of the judgment read
as:
"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the
High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to
disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in
Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry
officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High Court, in
exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 4 2023:PHHC:159636
reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can
only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry,
in case the same has been conducted in
accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy
of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 5 2023:PHHC:159636
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it
may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience."
X X X X
22. To sum up the legal position, being fact
finding authorities, both the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested
with the exclusive power to examine the
evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On
finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable
during the departmental inquiry, the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to
impose appropriate punishment on the
delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity
of the misconduct. However, in exercise of
powers of judicial review, the High Court or for
that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily
reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own
conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed
unless and until the punishment imposed is so
disproportionate to the offence that it would
shock the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for
other reasons, as enumerated in P.
Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment
imposed on the delinquent employee is such that
shocks the conscience of the High Court or the
Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate
Authority may be called upon to re-consider the
penalty imposed. Only in exceptional
circumstances, which need to be mentioned,
should the High Court/Tribunal decide to
impose appropriate punishment by itself, on
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
CWP-25127-2023 6 2023:PHHC:159636
offering cogent reasons therefor."
7. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired along with all
retiral benefits. The witnesses appeared before enquiry officer and
confirmed the demand of bribe. The petitioner being part of armed force
was bound to maintain discipline and integrity. This Court does not find
that punishment awarded was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
8. In the wake of law laid down by Supreme Court as well as
above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
13.12.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159636
6 of 6
