Punishing Constable Despite Exoneration By Inquiry Officer Is Miscarriage Of Justice: P&H HC Quashes Penalty, Imposes ₹1.1 Lakh Costs On State
Holding that the disciplinary authorities acted in a casual and mechanical manner by punishing a police constable despite his exoneration in a departmental inquiry, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect and imposed costs of ₹1,10,000 on the State.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "It seems to be a case of casual adjudication of departmental proceedings because alleged delinquent was a mere Constable. The Disciplinary Authority casually awarded major penalty of forfeiture of five increments and higher authorities upheld order of disciplinary authority. It is a case of casualty and miscarriage of justice on the part of departmental authorities."
Background
The petitioner joined the police force as a Constable on 03.10.1989. In 2002, while posted at Police Post Kalanaur, he was assigned the duty of driving a government motorcycle. During this period, he developed differences with Head Constable Jaswant Singh.
Following his transfer to PGIMS, Rohtak, an incident occurred in 2003, during which a fight allegedly took place between the petitioner and HC Jaswant Singh. The petitioner sustained an injury to his eye and was taken to hospital, where medical examination was conducted and a ruqa and MLR were sent to the SHO.
At the instance of Head Constable Jaswant Singh, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging misbehaviour with a senior officer and taking away a government motorcycle despite having been transferred.
The Inquiry Officer's report categorically found the allegation of taking away the motorcycle was false and contradicted by the logbook and records.
The injury suffered by the petitioner was inflicted by Head Constable Jaswant Singh. The report regarding taking away of the motorcycle was lodged by Singh to save himself. The petitioner's only lapse was not immediately reporting at PGIMS, Rohtak after transfer, while Singh was equally culpable in the incident.
Ignoring the inquiry report and without issuing any disagreement note, the Superintendent of Police issued a show cause notice and imposed the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect on 31.01.2004. The petitioner's appeal and revision were dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the Director General of Police, respectively.
After hearing the submissions, the Court found that the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges.
The disciplinary authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the charges stood proved and in the absence of a disagreement note, the disciplinary authority had no jurisdiction to impose punishment, it added.
"The Inquiry Officer found petitioner innocent and HC Jaswant Singh guilty. No action was taken against HC Jaswant Singh, however, without recording disagreement note, show cause notice proposing punishment was issued. The petitioner was having service of 14 years to his credit. There was no bad entry in his character role or service record. The Disciplinary Authority without examining inquiry report firstly issued show cause notice and thereafter awarded punishment of forfeiture of five increments," the bench said.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the punishment order as well as appellate and revisional orders and observed that the petitioner suffered financial loss and mental agony for over 20 years.
The Court imposed costs of ₹1,10,000, payable within 45 days and directed release of arrears of salary and consequential benefits within six months, with 6% interest, failing which 9% interest would be payable.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocatefor the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others