Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Lathar Alias Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038416
CWP-7790-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
134
CWP-7790-2025
Date of Decision: 20.03.2025
Satish Lathar @ Satish Kumar ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Mohinder Pal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., 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 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-8) vide which
punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with
permanent effect has been awarded to him;
(ii) order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-11) vide which his
appeal against order dated 01.05.2019 has been rejected.
(iii) order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-13) whereby revision
has been partly allowed.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable. He from
time to time was promoted. He, in 2017, was holding rank of Assistant Sub
Inspector. While he was posted at Police Station Bass, District Police Hansi,
FIR No. 23 dated 09.11.2017 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, P.S. SVB, Hisar came to be registered against him. He was placed
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038416
under suspension and a regular departmental inquiry was conducted against him.
The Inquiry Officer found him guilty. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing
show cause notice awarded him punishment of stoppage of 4 future annual
increments with permanent effect. He vide judgment dated 31.01.2020 came to
be acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in the aforesaid FIR.
He preferred appeal against punishment order before Appellate Authority which
was rejected on the ground of limitation. He preferred revision before Director
General of Police who reduced the quantum of punishment. The punishment of
stoppage of 4 future annual increments with permanent effect came to be
substituted by stoppage of 2 annual increments with permanent effect.
3. Mr. Mohinder Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner stands acquitted in the criminal proceedings and department did not
examine alleged complainant and witnesses during departmental proceedings,
thus, respondent has wrongly and arbitrarily punished him.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038416
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. 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, re-
appreciating 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;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced
by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038416
(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."
xxx xxx xxx
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,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038416
should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate
punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefore."
6. The sole ground to challenge findings of Departmental Authorities
is acquittal in criminal case. This Court is of the considered opinion that if
criminal proceedings are initiated besides departmental proceedings, the
outcome of departmental proceedings, in view of the fact that both proceedings
are independent and different yardstick is applied, cannot be ignored or brushed
aside on account of dropping of criminal proceedings. In case of departmental
proceedings, the department is not bound to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt because findings depend upon preponderance of probabilities.
7. 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.
8. From the perusal of judgment of acquittal passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, it is evident that complainant and other
witnesses turned hostile which compelled the trial Court to acquit the petitioner.
The authorities have recorded reasoned findings. There is no procedural
infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference.
9. In the wake of above discussion and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
20.03.2025 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
5 of 5
