Forfeiting 10 Increments For Police Officer Being Absent From Duty For One Day 'Disproportionate': P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that forfeiting 10 annual increments of a police officer for being absent from duty for one day is disproportionate to the misconduct.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "by no means or reasons, awarded punishment can be called proportionate to alleged misconduct. The absence was only of one day and it was not case of respondent that petitioner was posted at a particular place where atmosphere was of hostility, serious public disorder, riots. In the absence of peculiar circumstances, the respondent was bound to award punishment proportionate to alleged offence."

The Court further clarified that 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 10 years has already passed away.

It opined that the authorities have passed impugned orders mechanically "and there are all possibilities that remand would multiply the litigation."

Hence, "to cut short the litigation" and considering the alleged misconduct, the Court reduced the quantum of punishment to forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect.

Facts In Brief

Satyaveer Singh, was serving as a Constable in Haryana Police and allegedly found to be absent from duty for 24 hours and 20 minutes in 2015.

Departmental inquiry was initiated wherein he was found guilty of absence from duty. Singh was dismissed from service by order dated 23.01.2015 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rewari. He preferred an appeal which came to be partially allowed by Inspector General of Police, Rewari.

The Appellate Authority vide  reduced the quantum of punishment. The punishment of dismissal from service was converted into forfeiture of 10 annual increments with permanent effect. He preferred revision before Director General of Police which came to be dismissed.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, as per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as made applicable to the State of Haryana) (Rules), a Police Officer may be dismissed from service for gravest act of misconduct or cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service.

"The said Rule further provides that in passing award of dismissal from service, the Authority shall take care of length of service of the offender and his claim to pension," it added.

Perusing the Rule, Justice Bansal highlighted that from the plain reading of above quoted Rule, it is quite evident that there should be allegation of gravest misconduct or continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service.

"It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be commensurate to alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should be followed. Rule 16.2 of the 1934 Rules embodies guiding factors which should be kept in mind," added the judge.

The Court pointed that the Supreme Court time and again has held that in case Court finds that punishment awarded by authority is disproportionate to alleged misconduct, the Court should remand the matter to competent authority to reconsider quantum of punishment. As per principle of proportionality, punishment prescribed by legislation must be in commensurate to alleged offence.

"If punishment is disproportionate to alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," remarked the Court.

It observed further that, "while adjudicating petitions of police officials of State of Haryana has noticed that authorities have awarded minor punishment despite grave misconduct and even sentence by Trial Court. The Court has further noticed that Revisionary Authority is passing orders in mechanical manner. The facts as narrated in orders passed by Authorities below are reproduced and without recording reason revision is dismissed."

In the present case, the Court also found that the "appellate order was passed on 20.03.2015 and revision was filed through proper channel. Director General of Police passed order on 04.07.2015, means there was difference of less than 4 months between the date of passing order by Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority."

The judge noted that the  Revisionary Authority has dismissed revision on the ground of delay. "It shows that despite there being small period of delay, Director General of Police has mechanically dismissed revision of the petitioner," it added.

In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of.

Mr. Vipin Yadav, Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Johal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Title: Satyaveer Singh v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order