Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210 CWP-4230-2003 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.08.2024
TARA SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
....PETITIONERS
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
****
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 18.02.2003
(Annexure P-7) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner worked with Armed Forces for 20 years and
thereafter on 09.10.1981 joined Punjab Police. In 1996, he was shifted to
Welfare Branch of Punjab Police. He was incharge of receipt of cash from
borrower of Welfare Fund. As per procedure, installments used to be received by
accounts branch from borrower and cash was deposited with a bank. An entry
was made in cash book followed by Ledger. The folio number of cash book was
required to be recorded in Ledger which is otherwise a normal accounting
practice.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 2-
3. The petitioner during March' 1999 to November' 2000 collected a
sum of Rs.2,69,380 from different police officials as their installments but did
not deposit in bank. On getting information, the Competent Authority suspended
him w.e.f. 01.06.2001 and he was issued charge-sheet on 20.08.2001. After
conducting inquiry, the Competent Authority found him guilty of embezzlement.
He came to be dismissed by impugned order.
4. Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate confirms that petitioner, during the
pendency of instant petition, has passed away and his LRs are on record. He
further submits that punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate
to the alleged offence. There was delay in deposit of alleged amount, however,
deposit was made prior to order of suspension.
5. Per contra, Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, AAG, Punjab submits that
petitioner deposited alleged amount on 15.05.2001 and he was suspended on
01.06.2001 on the basis of complaint received from a police official. During the
course of inquiry, it was found that proper entries were not made in cash book
and Ledger, thus, it was established that petitioner embezzled the alleged
amount. This Court cannot examine question of quantum of punishment. The
petitioner was part of Punjab Police which is a disciplined organization.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance
perused the record.
7. 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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 3-
Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In
case, it is found that enquiry officer 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. Gunasekaran13 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 4-
venture into 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.
(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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 5-
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 offering cogent reasons
therefor."
8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that there was delay in
deposit of installments recovered from different police officials. The alleged
amount was collected during March' 1999 to November' 2000 whereas deposit
was made on 15.05.2001. There was substantial gap between the period of
collection and date of deposit. The petitioner had no authority to retain the
alleged amount. There was manipulation in cash book and ledger. The petitioner
was part of Punjab Police Force, thus, bound to maintain high standards of
integrity. He is only claiming that punishment was disproportionate to alleged
offence. The Disciplinary Authority is most Competent to determine quantum of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105546
CWP-4230-2003 (O&M) 6-
punishment. Court can interfere if there is patent irregularity or misreading of
evidence or non appreciation of evidence or consideration of facts which are not
supported by evidence. The case of petitioner is not covered in any of the
exceptions carved out by Supreme Court in different judgments.
9. Dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
14.08.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
