Dharamvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 1572 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharamvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 January, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360




117                                 2023:PHHC: 009360
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CWP-21929-2023
                                               Date of decision: 24.01.2024

DHARAMVIR SINGH                                            ....PETITIONER
                                Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                 ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:    Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226 of the

Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 02.06.2017

(Annexure P-2) whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner on 29.06.2015 joined Punjab Police as Constable.

During training period, the petitioner was sent to District Batala. The petitioner

was found absent on 06.09.2016 and this fact was noted in roznamcha at Police

Lines, Barnala. The absence of petitioner was further noted vide Rapat No. 32

dated 17.09.2016 of P.R.T.C., Jahan Khela. Due to continuous absence from

duty, the petitioner could not complete his training. The petitioner was issued

charge-sheet. He was issued notice thrice for appearance, however, he did not

join proceedings and an ex-parte order came to be passed. The petitioner on

account of absence from duty from 06.09.2016 to 02.06.2017 (270 days) came

to be dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2017 passed by SSP, Sangrur. The

petitioner preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated

20.09.2018 passed by DIG, Patiala Range, Punjab. The petitioner further

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360

CWP-21929-2023 preferred representation before Government which came to be dismissed vide

order dated 21.04.2023 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of

Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was absent from

duty because his mother was ill.

4. The petitioner joined force on 29.06.2015 and he remained absent

for 270 days from 06.09.2016 to 02.06.2017. There is nothing in the impugned

order disclosing that petitioner at that stage came forward with a plea of illness

of his mother. The petitioner opted to remain absent from duty as well as did not

join departmental proceedings which indicates that he was never interested to

pursue his job. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.06.2017 and his

appeal was dismissed on 20.09.2018. The petitioner could very well approach

revisionary authority or this Court after dismissal of appeal, however, from the

record it appears that he approached Government in December, 2020.

5. 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 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360

CWP-21929-2023 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 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;

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360

CWP-21929-2023

(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

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.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360

CWP-21929-2023 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."

6. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that interference of this Court in

the case in hand, in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is not warranted.

7. Dismissed.

24.01.2024                                           [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj                                                    JUDGE

                   Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                   Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009360

                                     5 of 5