JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

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

i. order dated 17.05.2007 whereby he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect;

ii. order dated 04.02.2008 whereby his appeal was dismissed; and

iii. order dated 18.10.2008 whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Police Force as Constable on 23.04.1973. He moved up in the ranks and was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector. He came to be arrested in FIR No. 953 dated 14.12.2005 under Sections 323, 452 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 61-1-14 of Excise Act registered at Police Station City Gurgaon which was lodged against him for trespassing his neighbour's property and abusing him under the influence of liquor. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him on basis the aforesaid FIR. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.05.2007 awarded him punishment of stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal as well as revision before the authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer did not appreciate evidence in true spirit and held him guilty. The Disciplinary Authority straightway issued show cause notice proposing punishment. It was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He was finally awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. There was no evidence against him still was subjected to aforesaid punishment. The higher authorities have passed impugned orders without application of mind. Inquiry was initiated only on the basis of FIR lodged against him. He vide judgment dated 10.11.2009 has been acquitted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugaon in aforesaid FIR.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Inquiry Officer served copy of relevant documents of departmental inquiry upon the petitioner and he was afforded reasonable time to lead his defence. Inquiry Officer after considering relevant documents held him guilty and framed charges against him. After perusing findings of Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority issued him show cause notice proposing penalty of dismissal from service, however, taking a lenient view, awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner has challenged impugned orders on technical grounds. He has not raised dispute on merit. There is no allegation of mala fide or connivance against Disciplinary Authority. In such circumstances, it would be inequitable and unfair to interfere with impugned orders awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect. Court is not oblivious of the fact that interference in such type of cases discourages higher Police Officials to take action against erring subordinates.

7. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The High 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 Inquiry 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 LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has held that departmen