[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
202-1 CWP-9974-2016
Date of Decision: 02.12.2025
SUBE SINGH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate with
Ms. Nisha Rani, Advocate and
Ms. Manisha, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:-
i. Order dated 05.07.2012 whereby he was awarded
punishment of recovery;
ii. Order dated 11.07.2012 whereby he was awarded
punishment of stoppage of 10 future annual increments
with permanent effect;
iii. Order dated nil whereby he was awarded punishment of
forfeiture of seven increment with permanent effect;
iv. Order dated 15.11.2013 whereby his revision petition was
dismissed; and
v. Order dated 25.01.2014 whereby his second appeal was
rejected;
1 of 5
2. The petitioner belongs to Haryana Police Force. He is
holding post of Driver. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry
against him alleging misappropriation of petrol expenses. He was served
two different chargesheets. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and
found him guilty of making wrong entries in the log book. The entries
made in log book were compared with GPS installed in the vehicle itself.
The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the inquiry report and inflicted
punishment of forfeiture of 10 increments with permanent effect vide
order dated 11.07.2012. The Disciplinary Authority further ordered to
recover loss caused by petitioner. He preferred appeal before Appellate
Authority which reduced punishment from forfeiture of 10 increments to
7 increments. He unsuccessfully preferred revision before DGP.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that log book is
countersigned by Incharge of the vehicle. The respondent did not
implicate Incharge of the vehicle and held the petitioner guilty. GPS was
not working in rural areas, thus, correct figure was not recorded.
4. On being confronted with statement of witnesses recorded by
Inquiry Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
besides passing order of recovery has imposed punishment of forfeiture
of 7 increments. The punishment of forfeiture of 7 increments is harsh
and this Court may be pleased to reduce said punishment.
5. Learned State counsel reiterated contents of impugned orders
and submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders.
2 of 5
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. From the Inquiry report and impugned orders, it is evident
that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner, thus, he was liable to
restore loss caused by him. Order of recovery of alleged loss is just and
fair. No interference in the order of recovery is warranted. However,
matter with respect to quantum of punishment needs to be examined.
8. The Supreme Court time and again has reminded that High
Court cannot examine factual position and disturb findings recorded by
departmental authorities. The Court has further held that High Court
cannot re-quantify quantum of punishment, however, if Court finds that
punishment awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence, the Court may
ask the authorities to re-consider quantum of punishment.
In "Om Kumar v. Union of India", (2001) 2 SCC 386 a
matter came up for hearing on account of an order of Supreme Court
dated 04.05.2000 proposing to re-open the quantum of punishments
imposed in departmental inquiry on certain officers of the Delhi
Development Authority who were connected with the land of the DDA
allotted to M/s. Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider
imposition of higher degree of punishment in view of the role of these
officers in the said matter. The question posed before the court was
whether the right punishment was awarded to the officers in accordance
with well known principles of law or whether the punishments required
any upward revision. Proportionality as a constitutional doctrine has been
3 of 5
highlighted therein.
In "Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh", (1983) 2
SCC 442, the Apex Court held that any penalty which is disproportionate
to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"15. ... It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be
commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that
any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. ..."
9. In the case in hand, the petitioner was awarded punishment
of forfeiture of 7 increments with permanent effect without order of
recovery of alleged loss. Plea of petitioner qua quantum of punishment
seems to be reasonable. The respondent was bound to award punishment
proportionate to alleged offence. The punishment awarded by
disciplinary authority did not commensurate to the alleged offence and
needs to be modified.
10. In the normal course, matter ought to be remanded to
authorities to reconsider quantum of punishment. However, in this
particular case, this Court does not find it appropriate to remand the
matter because a period of more than 10 years has already passed away.
There are all possibilities that remand would multiply the litigation. Thus,
to cut short the litigation and considering the punishment of forfeiture of
7 increments harsh and against the principle of proportionality, this Court
deems it appropriate to reduce the quantum of punishment to forfeiture of
four increment with consequential benefits.
4 of 5
11. Disposed of in above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
December 02, 2025
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
