Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Asi Sharmila – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:
(i) Order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-9) whereby she was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect;
(ii) Order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) whereby her appeal was dismissed; and
(iii) Order 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-12) whereby her revision was also dismissed.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 17.09.2003. She was promoted as ASI in 2016. An FIR No.424 dated 22.09.2022, under Section 376 of IPC, 1860 was registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner was Investigating Officer in the aforesaid FIR. The respondent initiated an inquiry against her alleging lapse in the investigation of aforesaid FIR. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.03.2023. The petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice. The respondent vide order dated 10.04.2023 awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect. She unsuccessfully preferred appeal as well as revision before Higher Authorities.
3. Mr. U.K. Agni
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.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to procedural fairness and legality, not the merits of factual conclusions.
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.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
