Punishment Involving Loss Of Service Benefits Can Be Imposed Only Upon Proof Of Misconduct: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary punishment involving civil consequences, such as forfeiture of service benefits, must be based on clear proof of misconduct or dereliction of duty.Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part,...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary punishment involving civil consequences, such as forfeiture of service benefits, must be based on clear proof of misconduct or dereliction of duty.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part, but since the punishment has been sought to be imposed without proof of any incriminating circumstance against petitioner, such a perverse action cannot be sustained.”
The petitioner, Hoshiar Singh was a 3rd Battalion constable of the Himachal Pradesh Armed Police and was posted on security duty at the official residence of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in Shimla.
In February, 2002 during his duty an unknown person allegedly trespassed into the high security zone, through the barbed wire fencing around the residence of the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
Thereafter, departmental inquiry was held and charges were framed against the petitioner for failing to notice the trespasser and for failure to perform the duty diligently.
The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of forfeiture of 4 years' service permanently for purposes of future increments on the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the alleged trespasser had neither trespassed through the area under his control nor he had exited from the said area.
The Court observed that none of the witnesses stated that the trespasser was within the sight or jurisdiction of petitioner or despite of having sighted the trespasser, he had failed to act.
The Court noted that the order of forfeiture of service was without any evidence or material on record and violated the principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Name: Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWPOA No. 749 of 2019
Date of Decision: 12.08.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.