The High Court's review in disciplinary matters is constrained to procedural correctness and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or punishment unless grossly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

(i) Order dated 23.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service;

(ii) Order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) whereby his appeal has been dismissed; and

(iii) Order dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-9) whereby his appeal has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner is part of Punjab Police Force. An FIR No.235 dated 23.12.2023, under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran was registered against him. On account of said FIR, he was suspended vide order dated 23.12.2023 and a departmental inquiry was initiated. The aforesaid FIR came to be set aside vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed by this Court in CRM-M No.37259 of 2023 titled as ‘Gurbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’. The petitioner was found guilty by Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to SSP who issued show cause notice dated 20.06.2023 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his 10 years approved service should not be permanently forfeited. He filed reply to said show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.12.2023 awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service. He preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority which dismissed his appeal. He unsuccessfully preferred revision before DGP, Punjab.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR against petition stands set aside by this Court, thus, impugned order is not sustainable.

4. From the perusal of record, it is evident that FIR was set aside by this Court on the ground of compromise. This Court has not adverted to merits of the case. There were serious allegations against the petitioner which led to registration of aforesaid FIR. The relevant extracts of order dated 23.12.2023 passed by punishing authority are reproduced as below:

“The comment report of the Superintendent of Police (Local) Tarn Taran was placed before me, and I carefully reviewed and considered it. In addition, I have taken into account the current status of the FIR, his length of service, and his past record. Taking a lenient view towards him, I have reduced the penalty proposed in the earlier show-cause notice and order that one (01) years of approved service of ASI/LR Gurwinder Singh No. 290/Tarn Taran be permanently forfeited for the purpose of salary increments. This will affect his past earned service, and his suspension period will be treated as suspension period. He will not be entitled to salary and allowances for the suspension period. A copy of this order be provided to ASI/LR Gurwinder Singh No. 290/Tarn Taran free of cost.”

5. 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 SCC OnLine SC 1617 while adverting with scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India