Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159654
CWP-20982-2023 1 2023:PHHC:159654
133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-20982-2023
Date of Decision:13.12.2023
JAGDEV 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. Arihant Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents- UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. On 20.09.2023, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends
that petitioner has been punished on the basis of
involuntary confession made by him which is contrary
to Rule 142 of BSF Rules, 1969. A two judge bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 05.09.2023
in Union of India and Others Versus Jogeshwar
Swain; Civil Appeal Nos.8629-8630 of 2014 has
adverted with Rule 142 of BSF Rules and held that
there should be strict compliance of aforesaid rule.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
petitioner is ready to forego consequential benefits, if
his quantum of sentence is reconsidered.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Hari Commandant
Versus Union of India and Others; 2023 Live Law
(SC) 303 has held that principle of proportionality is
also applicable to armed forces.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159654
CWP-20982-2023 2 2023:PHHC:159654
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to get
instructions with respect to possibility to re-consider
case of the petitioner qua quantum of sentence.
Adjourned to 29.09.2023."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner
at the time of alleged incident was under influence of liquor and he
misbehaved with Head Constable who was superior of the petitioner. The
respondent is a disciplined armed force and indiscipline cannot be
tolerated. The petitioner on earlier occasions as well was awarded minor
punishment.
3. Concededly, the petitioner joined respondent force on
09.06.2011. He has already completed more than 10 years of service. The
petitioner is a married man having female child.
4. Considering judgment of Supreme Court in B.S. Hari
Commandant (Supra) and without commenting upon merits of the case,
this Court finds that punishment awarded to petitioner is disproportionate
to alleged offence especially when another accused who was involved in
the same incident has been awarded lesser punishment. The petitioner is
ready to forego all consequential benefits. This Court is not oblivious of
the fact that quantum of punishment is discretion of the disciplinary
authority, however, it is settled proposition of law that punishment cannot
be disproportionate to alleged offence. The armed forces are also bound
to consider principles of natural justice, proportionality as well as
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the wake of peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that matter needs to
be re-examined by Competent Authority with respect to quantum of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159654
CWP-20982-2023 3 2023:PHHC:159654
punishment. To cut short the litigation, the matter is not remanded to
Disciplinary Authority whereas Appellate Authority is requested to re-
consider quantum of punishment in the light of facts and circumstances
as well as judgment of Supreme Court in B.S. Hari Commandant
(Supra). The needful shall be done within 6 months from today.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
13.12.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159654
3 of 3
