The court affirmed that its jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited, focusing on procedural adherence and not reappraising evidence unless the punishment is grossly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner on 29.06.2015 joined Punjab Police as Constable. During training period, the petitioner was sent to District Batala. The petitioner was found absent on 06.09.2016 and this fact was noted in roznamcha at Police Lines, Barnala. The absence of petitioner was further noted vide Rapat No. 32 dated 17.09.2016 of P.R.T.C., Jahan Khela. Due to continuous absence from duty, the petitioner could not complete his training. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet. He was issued notice thrice for appearance, however, he did not join proceedings and an ex-parte order came to be passed. The petitioner on account of absence from duty from 06.09.2016 to 02.06.2017 (270 days) came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2017 passed by SSP, Sangrur. The petitioner preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2018 passed by DIG, Patiala Range, Punjab. The petitioner further preferred representation before Government which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2023 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was absent from duty because his mother was ill.

4. The petitioner joined force on 29.06.2015 and he remained absent for 270 days from 06.09.2016 to 02.06.2017. There is nothing in the impugned order disclosing that petitioner at that stage came forward with a plea of illness of his mother. The petitioner opted to remain absent from duty as well as did not join departmental proceedings which indicates that he was never interested to pursue his job. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.06.2017 and his appeal was dismissed on 20.09.2018. The petitioner could very well approach revisionary authority or this Court after dismissal of appeal, however, from the record it appears that he approached Government in December, 2020.

5. It is settled proposition of law that 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 v. 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. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has act