JAGBIR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TROUGH HIS LRS v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors.

Ms. Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-3725-LPA-2026 The present application has been filed by the applicant- appellant for fixing the actual date of hearing of the present appeal. Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the main appeal is taken up on board for hearing today itself. LPA-2128-2013

#1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 14454 of 2013 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the punishment i.e. stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect imposed upon the appellant pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings was upheld. CM-3725-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2128-2013 (O&M) -2-

#2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against him and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

#3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the findings dated 06.09.2007 recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not supported by sufficient evidence and, therefore, the conclusion holding the appellant guilty is incorrect as the appellant has been held guilty merely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is discriminatory, as another co-delinquent, namely , EHC Jagmal Singh No. 850/CID, who was also charge-sheeted and was awarded the same punishment vide common order dated 21.11.2007, has been modified to a lesser punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect by the Director General of Police, Haryana.

#4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

#5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the charges which have been levelled and proved against him. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.219 of 2023 titled as Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar, decided on 19.01.2023, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot interfere even if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to charges levelled and proved, unless and until the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- “ 6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and CM-3725-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2128-2013 (O&M) -3- misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.

6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of CM-3725-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2128-2013 (O&M) -4- indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent.

6.4 At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable.”

#6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to rebut the same. CM-3725-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2128-2013 (O&M) -5-

#7. The further arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was insufficient evidence to establish the charges against the appellant.

#8. It may be noticed that in an appeal, that too on a judicial side, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be re-appreciated. The evidence brought on record in the departmental proceedings can not be re- appreciated by the Court in order to come at a different conclusion other than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh and others versus S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723; Union of India and another versus P. Gunasekaran, 2015 (1) SCT 5; State of Andhra Pradesh and others versus Chitra Venkata Rao, 1975 (2) SCC 557, Central Industrial Security Force and others versus Abrar Ali, 2017 (1) SCT 682 and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others versus Ajai Kumar Srevastava, 2021 (1) SCT 285, which judgments have gone unrebutted by the appellants.

#9. Further, the standard of proof required to prove a charge in the departmental proceedings is of preponderance of probability. Hence, the evidence to prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt is not required to be done while conducting the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the arguments that sufficient evidence was not brought on record before the enquiry officer to hold the appellant guilty cannot be accepted.

#10. The last argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a co-delinquent, namely Jagmal Singh, who was also CM-3725-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2128-2013 (O&M) -6- awarded the same imprisonment as the appellant through a common order has been awarded a lesser punishment later than the punishment imposed upon the appellant.

#11. It may be noticed that the punishment awarded in disciplinary proceedings depends upon the nature of the allegations proved against each delinquent as well as the degree of responsibility attached to the post held by him. Once, the responsibilities of both the delinquents were different, the disciplinary authority is correct in imposing the respective punishments upon them keeping in view the nature of the allegations established against each delinquent and the responsibility of a particular delinquent. Consequently, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 3186 of 2008, Man Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, and Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2008, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

#12. Hence, Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

#14. disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 06, 2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE