Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh vs Chandigarh Administration And Ors on 27 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP No.7133 of 2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213
CWP No. 7133 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27th November, 2025
HC Charanjit Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration
through Secretary Home and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the respondents.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI,
SETHI J(Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge
hallenge is to the order dated
13.09.2018 (Annexure P-6)
P 6) passed by the learned Central Administra
Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by
which orders dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P
P-4), 13.04.2015 (Annexure
P-3)
3) and 26.12.2014 (Annexure P-2)
respectively vide which punishment of forf
forfeiture of 2 years of approved
services for increment purpose with permanent effect has been imposed
by disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate and revisional
authority, have been affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the
punishment was also challenged before the Tribunal but the same was not
pressed and only argument pressed before the Tribunal was that keeping
in view the allegations alleged and proved, the imposit
imposition of major
1 of 4
penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was
disproportionate which argument has not been appreciated in correct
perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
4. It may be noticed that the allegation, which was alleged
against the petitioner was that he was under the influence of liquor while
on duty. The said allegations have been proved in the Departmental
Inquiry and the petitioner has not challenged the finding of guilt. A
Police officer, who is required to maintain law and order and is expected
to prevent drunken driving cannot himself be on duty in an intoxicated
condition. Once, such an allegation is proved against a police officer, the
punishment must be imposed keeping in view the nature of duties to be
performed and the allegations alleged against such police officer. The
allegations are infact grave and in case any police officer who is under
the influence of liquor and that too while on duty, is given a minor
punishment, it will send a wrong message to the discipline force that as
and when the discipline is violated, they will suffer a minor penalty and
not the major one.
5. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.219 of 2023
titled as, Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar
decided on 19.01.2023, the disproportionate punishment can also not
to be interfered with unless and until the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the
employee concerned. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as
under:-
2 of 4
'6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High
Court has materially erred in interfering with the
order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved
charges and misconduct of indiscipline and
insubordination and giving threats to the superior of
dire consequences on the ground that the same is
disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the
case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering
the power of judicial review of the High Court in
interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is
observed and held by this Court after considering
the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs.
R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of
powers of judicial review interfering with the
punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was
disproportionate, the punishment should not be
merely disproportionate but should be strikingly
disproportionate. As observed and held that only in
an extreme case, where on the face of it there is
perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review
under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on
hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of
dismissal can be said to be strikingly
disproportionate warranting the interference of the
High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and on the charges and
misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination
proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the
order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it
cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or
strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong.
Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of
the High Court has committed a very serious error in
interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal
imposed and ordering reinstatement of the
respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
dispute the said proposition of law.
7. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order
passed by the punishing authority, appellate authority, revisional
authority or by the Tribunal has been pointed out by the learned counsel
3 of 4
for the petitioner, no ground for interference by this Court is made out
and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any is also
disposed of .
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
27th November, 2025 (VIKAS SURI)
reema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
