Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 January, 2026
CWP-15426-2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CWP-15426-2007
Date of Decision: 08.01.2026
Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'LE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Karanveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of stoppage one future annual increment with permanent effect.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that underpinning of inquiry was a news published in daily newspaper 'Punjab Kesari'. In the news, it was published that one officer of Vigilance Department was beaten up by villagers of Mandhokhra. The petitioner was not named in the news article, thus, no inference could be drawn against him. Inquiry Officer did not find him guilty. He was found innocent by Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority being different from Inquiry Officer was bound to call comments of the petitioner prior to rejecting inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority straightway issued show cause notice proposing punishment. It was in gross 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:20 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -2- violation of principles of natural justice. He was finally awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect. There was no evidence against the petitioner still was subjected to aforesaid punishment. The petitioner was working in CID Department at the relevant point of time and not Vigilance Department.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on 01.11.1991 and was sent on deputation to CID on 17.02.1994. After serving the department as adhoc Head Constable and ASI (Promoted on fortuitous basis), he was repatriated to District Police, Kurukshetra on 03.12.2005 because of complaint against him regarding grabbing money from a notorious person Darshan Singh (Ex- Sarpanch), resident of Village Mandhokhra. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by CID Inspector Mam Chand. In the regular departmental inquiry, he was exonerated. The Superintendent of Police did not agree with inquiry report and issued show cause notice for stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect, however, taking a lenient view, awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. The inquiry is adumbrated in Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short 'PPR'). The said Rule prescribes complete procedure of inquiry and punishment which is reproduced as below:
"16.24. Procedure in departmental enquiries.-(1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries -
2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -3-
(i) The police officer accused of misconduct shall be brought before an officer empowered to punish him, or such superior officer as the Superintendent may direct to conduct the enquiry. That officer shall record and read out to the accused officer a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. A cop of the statement will also be supplied to the accused officer free of charge.
(ii) If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him, the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to frame a charge, record the accused officer's plea and any statement he may wish to make in extenuation and to record a final order, if it is within his power to do so, or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. When the allegations are such as can form the basis of a criminal charge, the Superintendent shall decide at this stage, whether the accused shall be tried departmentally first and judicially thereafter.
(iii) If the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record such evidence, oral and documentary, in proof of the accusation, as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible, witnesses shall be examined direct, and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take notes of their statements and cross-
examine them. The officer conducting the enquiry is empowered, however, to bring on to the record the statement of any witness whose presence cannot, in the opinion of such officer, be procured without undue delay and expense or inconvenience, if he considers such statement necessary, and provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank to the accused officer or by a magistrate, and is signed by the person making it. This statement shall 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -4- also be read out to the accused officer and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. The accused shall be bound to answer any questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided.
(iv) When the evidence in support of the allegations has been recorded the enquiring officer shall, (a) if he considers that such allegations are not substantiated, either discharge the accused himself, if he is empowered to punish him, or recommend his discharge to the Superintendent, or other officer, who may be so empowered, or (b) proceed to frame a formal charge or charges in writing, explain them to the accused officer and call upon him to answer them.
(v) The accused officer shall be required to state the defence witnesses whom he wishes to call and may be given time, in no case exceeding forty eight hours, to prepare a list of such witnesses, together with a summary of the facts as to which they will testify. The enquiring officer shall be empowered to refuse to hear any witnesses whose evidence he considers will be irrelevant or unnecessary in regard to the specific charge framed. He shall record the statements of those defence witnesses whom he decides to admit in the presence of the accused, who shall be allowed to address questions to them, the answers to which shall be recorded; provided that the enquiring officer may cause to be recorded by any other police officer superior in rank to the accused the statement of any such witness whose presence cannot be secured without undue delay or inconvenience, and may bring such statement on to the record. The accused may file documentary evidence and may for this purpose be allowed access to such files and papers, except such as form part of the record of the confidential office of the Superintendent of Police, as the enquiring officer deems fit. The supply of copies of documents to the 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -5- accused shall be subject to the ordinary rules regarding copying fees.
(vi) At the conclusion of the defence evidence, or, if the enquiring officer so directs, at any earlier stage following the framing of a charge, the accused shall be required to state his own answer to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement and may be given time, not exceeding one week, for its preparation, but shall be bound to make an oral statement in answer to all questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him, arising out of the charge, the recorded evidence, or his own written statement.
(vii) The enquiring officer shall proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so, or to forward the case with his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. Whenever the officer passing the orders of punishment proposes to take into considerations the adverse entries on the previous record of the accused police officer, he shall provide reasonable opportunity to the defaulter to defend himself; and a copy or at least a gist of those entries shall be conveyed to the defaulter and he shall be asked to convey to the defaulter and he shall be asked to give such explanation as he may deem fit. The explanation furnished by the defaulter shall be taken into account by the officer before passing orders in the case.
(viii) Nothing in the foregoing rule shall debar a Superintendent of Police from making or causing to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct of a suspected officer. Such an enquiry is not infrequently necessary to ascertain the nature and degree of misconduct which is to be formally enquired into. The suspected police officer may or may not be present at such preliminary enquiry, as ordered by the Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer initiating the investigation, but shall not cross-examine witnesses. The file of such a preliminary investigation 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -6- shall form no part of the formal departmental record, but statements therefrom may be brought to the formal record when the witnesses are no longer available in the circumstances detailed in clause (iii) above. All statements recorded during a preliminary investigation should be signed by the person making them and attested by the officer recording them.
(2) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a Superintendent of Police or any officer of rank higher than Superintendent, may instituted, or cause to be instituted, ex parte proceedings in any case in which he is satisfied that the defaulter cannot be found or that in spite of notice to attend the defaulter is deliberately evading service or refusing to attend without due cause.
(ii) The procedure in such ex parte proceedings shall, as far as possible, conform to the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1):
Provided that the defaulter shall be deemed -
(a) not to have admitted the allegations contained in the summary of misconduct, and
(b) to have entered a plea of not guilty of the charge:
Provided further that the defaulter, if he subsequently appears at any stage during the course of the proceedings shall not be entitled to claim de novo proceedings or to recall for cross-examination any witness whose evidence has already been recorded. He shall, however, be fully informed of the evidence which has been led against him and shall be permitted to take notes thereof. Не shall also be furnished with a copy of the summary of misconduct and of the charge or charges framed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where an officer, empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank the police officer accused of misconduct, is satisfied at any stage during an enquiry that for reasons, to be recorded in writing by that officer, it is not reasonably practicable to
6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -7- hold the enquiry after that stage, he will straight-away award the punishment.
Explanation - For the purposes of sub-rule (3), initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the police officer on the grounds of,-
(i) indulging in spying or smuggling activities;
(ii) disrupting the means of transport or of
communication;
(iii) damaging public property;
(iv) creating indiscipline amongst fellow policemen;
(v) promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language;
(vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to mass abstentions;
(vii) spreading disaffection against the Government; and
(viii) causing riots and the like;
shall be sufficient reason for concluding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry [Emphasis supplied] From the perusal of the above quoted Rule, it is evident that Clause (vii) of Rule 16.24(1) deals with situation post conclusion of inquiry. It provides that Inquiry Officer shall proceed to pass order of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so or forward the case with his findings and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. There is nothing in the Rule which provides that Disciplinary Authority if is different from Inquiry Officer, would seek comments of delinquent before forming any opinion on the inquiry report. The petitioner is claiming that seeking opinion of delinquent before forming any opinion on inquiry report is part of natural justice. It is true that in the absence of embargo, the delinquent 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -8- should be given full opportunity to put forth his stand. Compliance of requirement of opportunity of hearing or opportunity to file response depends upon facts and circumstances as well as nature of proceedings. There is no absolute and straight jacket formula. Rule 16.24 of PPR is silent with respect to opportunity to delinquent before forming any opinion by Disciplinary Authority on inquiry report. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority supplied inquiry report to the delinquent along with disagreement note-cum-show cause notice and called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be awarded punishment. The delinquent filed his reply. He raised all possible pleas. The Disciplinary Authority further granted him opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that petitioner was not granted due opportunity to put forth his stand qua inquiry report and proposed punishment. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry as per Rule 16.24 of PPR.
From the above discussion, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that petitioner was granted due opportunity to file his written response as well as opportunity of personal hearing. There was due compliance of principles of natural justice. The claim of petitioner is solely based upon principles of natural justice. He is not claiming violation of procedure contemplated by Rule 16.24 of PPR. This Court finds that there was due compliance of principles of natural justice as well as mandate of Rule 16.24 of PPR qua procedure to be adopted before imposing punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect.
6. The petitioner has challenged impugned orders on technical grounds. The petitioner has not raised dispute on merit. There is no allegation of mala fide or connivance against Disciplinary Authority or 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -9- complainant. In such circumstances, it would be inequitable and unfair to interfere with impugned orders awarding punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment with permanent effect. Court is not oblivious of the fact that interference in such type of cases discourages higher Police Officials to take action against erring subordinates.
7. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed, the Court can interfere. A two- judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has held that departmental authorities are fact finding authorities. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.
9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -10-
8. A Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob v, K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that there are two cardinal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of appeal which it is not.
9. The petitioner was subjected to departmental inquiry. The authorities duly followed prescribed procedure. Inquiry Officer examined witnesses and thereafter submitted his report. The petitioner was given full opportunity to put-forth his stand. Thus, it cannot be concluded that there was either violation of procedure or authorities did not appreciate evidence 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 ::: CWP-15426-2007 -11- on record. Interference by this Court in impugned orders would amount to substitution of opinion of departmental authorities which is impermissible in law. Punishment awarded is incommensurate to offence committed by petitioner.
10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
08.01.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:21 :::