Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004562
117 2023:PHHC: 004562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5725-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.01.2024
ASHOK KUMAR ....PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Kiran Kumar Madan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Departmental Inquiry
Report dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure P-6); punishment order dated 02.04.2018
(Annexure P-9), Appellate Authority order dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure P-10),
revisionary order dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure P-11), order dated 19.06.2020
(Annexure P-13) whereby mercy petition has been dismissed and order dated
17.05.2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby DGP has rejected representation of the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as constable on 27.04.2011. The
petitioner from time to time, was transferred from one place to another. The
petitioner on 29.12.2015 was assigned duty to accompany ASI Gursharan Singh
and Head Constable Satpal to Civil Hospital for postmortem of deceased
Rajwinder Singh son of Gurmej Singh. The petitioner was served with charge-
sheet alleging that he failed to deposit viscera of the deceased Rajwinder Singh
within time. A similar charge-sheet was issued to different police officials. The
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004562
CWP-5725-2023 (O&M) -2-
petitioner has been subjected to punishment of forfeiture of annual increment of
two years with cumulative effect whereas other employees have been subjected
to punishment of forfeiture of annual increment without cumulative effect. The
petitioner was constable at the time of commission of alleged lapse and for the
first time, he was assigned duty of getting postmortem done whereas all other
officers are seniors as well as experienced still they are subjected to lesser
quantum of punishment.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in "Man Singh Vs. State of
Haryana and others, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331".
4. Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab expressed his inability to
controvert the anomaly in the punishment awarded to the petitioner vis-a-vis
other employees. He fairly submits that if Court directs, the Competent
Authority would reconsider case of the petitioner.
5. In the wake of judgment of Man Singh (Supra) and the facts
involved, the disciplinary authority is directed to reconsider case of the
petitioner qua cumulative effect of the punishment awarded to the petitioner. The
needful shall be done within 4 months from today.
6. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.
15.01.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004562
2 of 2
