HARJIT SINGH EX CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EX -Constables Harjit Singh and Gurmeet Singh were placed under suspension on 5. 12. 1986 and a common departmental inquiry was conducted against both these police officials. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry. Harjit Singh stood transferred to 6th Batallion and the findings of the inquiry report were forwarded to S. P. Hisar for passing the appropriate order. The Commandant, 1st Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Ambala City dismissed Harjit Singh from service with effect from 10. 5. 1988 and also directed that the suspension period shall not be counted towards duty period and he would be entitled to suspension allowances for the period of suspension. While Constable Gurmeet Singh was awarded the punishment of censure only.

(2.) ON the above premises, the basic contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is not only disproportionate to the offence allegedly committed by the appellant but is totally arbitrary in face of the punishment awarded to Constable Gurmeet Singh. In order to appreciate this contention raised on behalf of the appellant, it will be relevant to note here that the suit for declaration filed by the appellant to the effect the order of punishment dated 12. 5. 1988 is void, inoperative and against the principles of natural justice was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 20. 1. 1996.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has raised various contention including that there was violation of principles of natural justice, denial of fair opportunities and arbitrariness on the part of the department. Further, it was contended that the pre-requisite for imposition of major penalty as postulated under 16. 2 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana was not satisfied in the present case. Having gone through the record of the courts below and the relevant Rules, 1 am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant do not have much substance. To say that the alleged misconduct on the part of the appellant is not of a grave nature would be unsustainable at the face of it. It has also come on record that due opportunity was granted to the appellant. Notice to show cause was duly served upon the appellant to which he had replied to at the initial stage as well as prior to the imposition of the impugned penalty. In the departmental inquiry, he had cross-examined the departmental witnesses. A detailed order was passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty in question; but still the question that deserves consideration is whether this Court in Regular Second Appeal should go to the question of quantum of punishment imposed upon the appellant. In fact that is the main plank of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. As already noticed, according to him the punishment is disproportionate to the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant and secondly there is complete arbitrariness on the part of the department in imposing the severest punishment against the appellant. For proper appreciation of these contentions, it may be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the main order exhibit PW. 3/33. ". . . . . . . . Brief facts giving rise to this enquiry are that while posted at HAP Guard, Railway Bridge, Ghaggar, District Ambala on the night intervening 2/3. 12. 1986, Const. Baljit Singh was on sentry duty from 11. 00 P. M. to 2. 00 A. M. At about 12. 45 A. M. defaulter Constable Gurmeet Singh went to him and both of them started abusing their Senior Officers viz. Sh. Darshan Singh Brar, D. S. P. and S. I. Gurdev Singh Gandhi, O. S. I. In the meantime, S. I. Ajaib Singh, Incharge guard and Head Constable Dyal Chand No. 1/33 came out and forbade them to do so. Instead of adopting silence, they began to misbehave with S. I. Ajaib Singh and Head Constable Dyal Chand and also threatened to shoot at them. At that time the defaulters were allegedly under the influence of liquor, but due to non-availability of proper means of communication and conveyance and there being no registered medical practitioner nearby they could not be got medically examined. On receipt of the report of above misconduct on the part of defaulters both of them were placed under suspension w. e. f. 5. 12. 1986 and Sh. Ajmer Singh D. S. P. was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide order referred to above. " A common and combined statement of allegations were served upon both the police officials vide exhibit D. 1. Common inquiry was conducted and both of them were found to be guilty of the misconduct. In this back ground, it is difficult for this Court to appreciate that how could one person be left with imposition of penalty of Censure while other is dismissed from service with denial of other benefits. Fairness in departmental action is the very route of service jurisprudence. The disciplinary authority is required to act in a manner which at the face of it does not appear to be unjust and unfair. Normally, the punishment is a matter which would fall primarily in the domain of the department/disciplinary authority and the Courts would rarely interfere in any orders of punishment. But where orders of punishment ex-facie appears to be unreasonable and not in commensurate to the guilt of the delinquent official, the Court must come to the rescue of the delinquent official and interfere in the quantum of punishment. Still, the Colt would not form its opinion as to what punishment should be awarded to a delinquent official. These arc the settled principles which would consequently apply to the facts of the present case.