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. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioner were as vague as could be. The respondent without appreciating act and conduct of the petitioner has awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court after two years from the date of passing last order on 21.07.2023 passed by DGP, Haryana. There is no plausible explanation for delay of two years in approaching this Court.

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 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, (2015) 2 SCC 610. 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 acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into r