JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

I. Order dated 16.02.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect was imposed;

II. Memo dated 13.05.2009 (Annerxure P-2A) whereby adverse remarks were conveyed;

III. Order dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure P-3) whereby his appeal was dismissed; and IV. Notice dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby he was prematurely retired.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police force as Constable on 21.04.1973. He was promoted from time to time. He was implicated in FIR No. 260 dated 09.12.2007, under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (later on deleted and Section 384/34 of IPC added) registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct. He was issued show cause notice. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.02.2009 awarded him punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.05.2009 .

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct.

4. Learned State Counsel reiterates findings of the departmental authorities and submits that no interference is warranted. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be above board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be incommensurate to alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should be followed by all quasi- judicial and judicial authorities while awarding punishment irrespective of nature of offence. As per principle of proportionality, even punishment prescribed by legislation must be incommensurate to alleged offence. If punishment is disproportionate to alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. In Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, Supreme Court vide order dated 4.5.2000 proposed to re-open the quantum of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on certain officers of the Delhi Development Authority who were connected with the land of the DDA allotted to M/s. Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider imposition of higher degree of punishments in view of role of these officers in the said matter. The question posed before the court was whether the right punishment was awarded to the officers in accordance with well-known principles of law or whether the punishments required any upward revision. The Court has highlighted proportionality as a constitutional doctrine.

In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 442, the Apex Court held that any penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"15. ... It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ..."

8. The petitioner at this stage does not press adverse remarks in ACR and order of compulsory retirement, however, is praying for modification of punishment order. From the perusal of record, it comes out that departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of aforesaid FIR. The disciplinary authority awarded him punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect. He stands acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 26.07.2010. He was not a habitual offender. In these circumstances, by no means or reasons, awarded punishment can be called proportionate to alleged misconduct.

9. The Supreme Court has held