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 has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable. He was promoted from time to time. In 2009, he was placed under suspension while was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Rajaund. He was transferred to Police Line, Kaithal vide order dated 25.08.2009. He did not join his transferred place of posting for 28 days, thus, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent without seeking approval of the competent authority. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary authority issued him show cause notice proposing punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.04.2010 awarded him punishment of stoppage of five increment with permanent effect. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.06.2010. He preferred revision which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2011 passed by Director General of Police. He preferred mercy petition before the Home Secretary on 11.04.2011 which was returned by the office of Director General of Police on 30.05.2017 with an observation that no mercy petition lies after adjudication of revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct. The petitioner remained absent for 28 days because he was unwell. In the departmental inquiry, Dr. Sandeep Jain and Dr. Bhupinder Singh, Medical Officers confirmed his illness and need of rest. He duly intimated department about his medical condition.

4. Per contra, 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 was bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

5. I have 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 in commensurate 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. Proportionality as a constitutional doctrine has been highlighted as follows:

"30. On account of a Chapter on Fundamental Rights in Part III of our Constitution right from 1950, Indian Courts did not suffer from the disability similar to the one experienced by English Courts for declaring as unconstitutional legislation on the principle of proportionality or reading them in a manner consistent with the charter of rights. Ever since 1950, principle of " proportionality" has indeed been applied vigorously to legislative (and administrative) action in India. While dealing with the validity of legislation infr