JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 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 Police Force as Constable on 03.10.1989. In 2002, he was transferred to Police Post Kalanaur as Driver of Motorcycle No.HNR-5747. He developed differences with Head Constable (for short ‘HC’) Jaswant Singh. He was transferred from Police Post Kalanaur to PGIMS, Rohtak. On 11.04.2003, a fight took place between petitioner and HC Jaswant Singh. The petitioner suffered injury on his eye. He rushed to hospital for medical assistance. At the behest of HC Jaswant Singh, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against the petitioner alleging that he misbehaved with his senior HC Jaswant Singh and took away motorcycle from Police Station despite being transferred on 11.04.2003. The Inquiry Officer vide report dated 04.09.2003 concluded that motorcycle was not taken away as per record and logbook. A report regarding taking away motorcycle from Police Station has been lodged by HC Jaswant Singh in order to save himself. It was petitioner who suffered injury on his eye. In this regard, MLR and ruqa were sent by Doctor to SHO. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of not joining PGIMS, Rohtak despite his transfer. The Superintendent of Police issued him show cause notice dated 20.12.2003 proposing punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect. He filed reply to said show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.01.2004 awarded him punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.03.2004. He preferred revision which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2004 passed by Director General of Police.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of alleged offence. The Disciplinary Authority assuming that Inquiry Officer had found him guilty of alleged misconduct issued show cause notice proposing punishment and thereafter awarded punishment. The higher authorities mechanically dismissed his appeal/revision.

4. Learned State counsel reiterates the 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. On being asked, learned State counsel expressed her inability to controvert that Inquiry Officer did not find petitioner guilty of charges framed against him.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. It is 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.

8. 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 pr