Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101 CWP-10971-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.03.2025
Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Present: - Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Raman Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of: -
i. order dated 04.03.1996 (Annexure P-10) passed by
respondent No.3 whereby respondent withheld his five
increments with permanent effect; and
ii. order dated 27.05.1996 (Annexure P-11) passed by
respondent No.2 to the extent of stoppage of his two
annual increments with permanent effect.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable on
08.10.1983. He came to be discharged on 19.08.1991. He filed
representation before Deputy Inspector General of Police who accepted his
representation and reinstated him. He was again discharged on 02.06.1992.
He preferred CWP No.17299 of 1994 before this Court which was disposed
of with liberty to submit representation with supporting documents to
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -2-
respondents. He submitted representation to Commandant who vide order
dated 04.03.1996 reinstated him with consequential benefits, however,
imposed punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect.
Petition before this Court was disposed of in view of his reinstatement. He
preferred appeal before Appellate Authority assailing order of imposition of
forfeiture of five increments. The Appellate Authority vide impugned order
dated 27.05.1996 reduced the punishment from stoppage of five increments
to stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The period of absence
was ordered to be treated as dies-non.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent did
not conduct regular inquiry. The inquiry was dispensed with only on the
ground that this Court has directed to pass order within one month. That
could not be ground to dispense with the inquiry. The punishment of
forfeiture of two increments was harsh.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner is a
habitual absentee. He was subjected to minor or majority penalty on 24
occasions. He was again dismissed from service after passing of impugned
orders. His dismissal was set aside by the Appellate Authority and he was
subjected to punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent
effect.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides
and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was
discharged from service on 02.06.1992. The discharge was within three
years from the date of appointment means during probation period he was
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -3-
discharged. This Court while passing order dated 23.01.1996 directed the
respondent to decide his representation within one month. At that point of
time, neither was there prayer nor order of this Court was to the effect that
respondent would conduct regular inquiry as contemplated by Punjab Police
Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana). The operative portion of
order dated 23.01.1996 is reproduced as below: -
"It is true that if a constable remains wilfuly (sic)
absent form (sic) duty, the competent authority can conclude
that he is not likely to make a good police officer. However,
in a case where the absence is not wilful, such a conclusion
may not be possible.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I am of
the view that the matter should be considered afresh by the
competent authority. The petitioner may submit a
representation explaining the full facts. He may also produce
the copies of the documents in his possession. If on
consideration of the evidence that may be adduced by the
petitioner, it is found that his absence be adduced by the
petitioner, it is found that his absence was not wilful, it may
be possible for the authority to review its order.
The hearing of this petition is adjourned. The
petitioner may submit a representation supported by
necessary documents within 2 weeks from today to
respondent No.3. The representation, if submitted, by the
petitioner, shall be considered and decided within one month
thereafter. The order that may be passed shall be produced in
this Court on March 1, 1996. The case shall be listed for
hearing on March 11, 1996.
A copy of this order shall be given dasti to the counsel
for the parties on deposit of requisite charges."
7. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of in view of
petitioner's reinstatement in service. In such circumstances, it cannot be held
that petitioner was subjected to punishment without conducting inquiry. The
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -4-
respondent had followed the procedure and order of this Court whereby
respondent was directed to decide his representation. There was no direction
to conduct inquiry. In view of principle of constructive res judicata, there is
no question to entertain issue of inquiry at this stage.
8. From the perusal of record, it is further evident that petitioner
was a habitual absentee. He during the pendency of this petition was again
dismissed from service, however, his punishment was substituted by
forfeiture of five increments.
9. 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 v.
Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 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
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -5-
judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment in Union of India
and Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610. The relevant extracts of
the judgment read as :-
"18. 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 re-
appreciation 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;
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -6-
(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."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
21. 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -7-
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
therefore."
10. The Supreme Court has time and again 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.
11. The petitioner was concededly a part of disciplined force and he
was bound to strictly follow the rules and regulations. Armed Forces cannot
retain any undisciplined member. It is not case of the petitioner that he, for
the first time, committed alleged offence and was subjected to harsh
punishment. Had the alleged offence been his first offence, this Court could
consider principle of proportionality and ask the respondents to reconsider
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -8-
quantum of punishment, however, as noted above, the petitioner is a habitual
offender and he has been punished more than once. On one occasion, he was
even dismissed from service. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by judgment of Apex Court in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India
and others, (2023) 9 SCC 100. The relevant extracts of the judgment read
as: -
"11. It is apparent from the above table that the appellant
was a habitual offender. There were four red ink entries and
one black ink entry against him before the present incident
cited at Serial No. (f) above. Such gross indiscipline on the
part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces
could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too
often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this
time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted,
would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must
be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark
of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of
service.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity
in the impugned judgment [Madan Prasad v. Union of India,
2015 SCC OnLine AFT 887] passed by the AFT. The
appellant had been taking too many liberties during his
service and despite several punishments awarded to him
earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous
imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth
infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not
deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than
that which has been awarded to him.
19. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as
meritless, while upholding the impugned judgment [Madan
Prasad v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine AFT 887] . The
parties are left to bear their own costs."
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029759
`
CWP-10971-1998 (O&M) -9-
12. In the wake of above discussion & findings and afore-cited
judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition being
bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
03.03.2025
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
9 of 9
