JUDGMENT : 

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service.

2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police Force on 15.04.1992. On 15.06.2007 He was promoted from time to time. On 15.06.2007, he along with other police officials was entrusted with duty to provide protection to couple Manoj and Babli who had married against the wishes of family members of girl-Babli. Aforesaid couple was murdered by accused Gurdev Singh (relative of deceased) after SHO SI Jagbir Singh allowed them to board Haryana Roadways bus going towards Karnal. Scrutiny of Phone call details of all the police officials deployed with aforesaid couple revealed that SHO Jagbir Singh and petitioner were in regular contact with accused-Gurdev Singh and they revealed location of aforesaid couple. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner and SI Jagbir Singh. SI Jagbir Singh was exonerated from the charges levelled against him whereas petitioner was found guilty. A show cause notice was served upon petitioner wherein punishment of dismissal from service was proposed. Inquiry officer vide order dated 25.04.2008 filed his report. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 29.04.2008. The petitioner preferred appeal before Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt against order of dismissal. IGP accepted his appeal and reinstated him vide order dated 26.06.2008. The Director General of Police, (for short DGP) reviewed order of IGP and recorded disagreement note. A show cause notice was again served upon petitioner. DGP, Haryana while exercising powers under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’) (as applicable to state of Haryana vide order dated 11.08.2009 restored dismissal order passed by Superintendent of Police, Kaithal and set aside appellate order. On 15.10.2009 petitioner preferred appeal before Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department Chandigarh. He approached this Hon’ble Court by way of CWP-12556-2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2012 with a direction to Secretary, Department of Home, Haryana to decide his appeal within three months. He also preferred COCP-1460-2013. Home Department vide order dated 02.07.2013 rejected his appeal.

3. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was in regular contact of Gurdev Singh who committed murder of the young couple. Call record clearly reveals that it was petitioner who leaked rather supplied information about whereabouts of aforesaid couple to Gurdev Singh. Matter was investigated and Gurdev Singh was found guilty. He was awarded death sentence by trial Court, however, his sentence was committed to life imprisonment. There is no doubt that petitioner leaked information about aforesaid couple, thus, he was guilty of heinous crime warranting punishment of dismissal from service.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

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 v. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with scope of interf