The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the importance of maintaining discipline in a disciplined force.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

The petitioner, who is serving as a Constable under the Haryana Police, was inflicted the punishment of stoppage of ten future annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly accepted and in terms of order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, the punishment was modified to stoppage of five increments with permanent effect. Petitioner having preferred a revision petition, an order dated 25.8.2006 has been passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana and in terms of which the punishment has been further reduced to stoppage of four increments with permanent effect.

2. The instant petition is directed against order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana and appended as Annexure P4.

3. Briefly noticed, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2005 on the following article of charge:

“You, the constable Chanderpal No.377/Hisar while posted in Police Post Surya Nagar on 01.07.05 and being the member of the discipline force, consumed liquor and misbehaved/abused your senior officer HC Mahabir Singh No.905/Hisar and committed gross negligence and indiscipline.”

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar having been appointed as Enquiry Officer, report dated 18.11.2005 was furnished holding the petitioner to have misbehaved, abused and insulted his senior officer i.e. the Acting In-charge of the Police Post. Based upon such enquiry findings, a show cause notice dated 5.12.2005 was served upon the petitioner contemplating the imposition of major punishment of dismissal from service. Upon consideration of the response filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and having been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Hisar passed an order dated 29.12.2005, Annexure P2, imposing punishment of stoppage of ten future annual increments with permanent effect. Such punishment was whittled down to stoppage of five increments with permanent effect by the Appellate Authority and still further, to stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect by the Revisional Authority.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the punishment has been imposed without proper appreciation and consideration of evidence led before the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses had not supported the allegation against the petitioner as regards consumption and being under the influence of liquor. In furtherance of such submission, it is submitted that the complainant i.e. Head Constable Mahabir Singh had appeared before the Enquiry Officer as PW3 and had stated in his cross-examination that even prior to the date of occurrence, he has served along with the delinquent in Police Lines, Hisar and had never seen him consuming liquor or misbehaving with any other official. A submission as regards quantum of punishment has also been raised stating that the petitioner had been enrolled in Haryana Police in the year 1991 and had an unblemished record of service and final order passed by the Director General of Police imposing punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect is too harsh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.

7. In B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCT 617, it was authoritatively laid down that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The power of judicial review would be exercised to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment but not to ensure that the conclusion which the competent authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the Court.

8. In the facts of the present case, the charge against the petit