Constable Misbehaves With Couple Travelling At Night, Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Punishment Of Stopping Fifteen Annual Increments

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the disciplinary punishment of stopping fifteen annual increments given to a constable for harassing and taking illegal gratification of Rs.300 from a a couple, during patrolling duty at night.

A Division bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "It has...been rightly observed by the Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal) that a perusal of the allegations proved and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner will show, that the same is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the conscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law chose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and causing harassment."

So when the enquiry has been held according to the prescribed procedure, there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings and there is no material regarding mala fide on the part of the authorities and the punishment imposed is not excessive, then no interference in the impugned orders is required by this Court, added the Court.

These observations were made while hearing the plea of a constable filed against the dismissal order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The plea sought quashing of the disciplinary proceeding against him for allegedly misbehaving with a woman who was travelling with his male friend at 2 AM and taking Rs. 300 from them.

In the writ petition it had been alleged that the impugned order had been passed by ignoring the illegalities and irregularities committed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issue in the right perspective, in the light of the fact that findings of Enquiry Officer proving the charge sheet against the petitioner are perverse.

The counsel for respondent submitted that under the orders of the competent authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer after conducting a full fledged enquiry proved the charges of misconduct against the petitioner.

Considering the submissions the Court rejected  the contention that at the point of time petitioner had rendered only one year of service, when he was put on duty along with another constable , who had 19 bad entries in the service record of 21 years, so any person deployed on duty along with him was prone to suffer on account of his misconduct being a history sheeter and authorities should not have put such a person on public duty.

The Court observed that, "the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar were doing duty together, so the complaint made by the man regarding misbehavior and illegal gratification, was also to be taken as a complaint qua the petitioner also.

It further said that It has been rightly observed, that the argument of the petitioner that he knew of the demand made for money, but had no alternative except to abide by the order of his senior, "does not absolve him of being a co-participant in the harassment and demand of illegal gratification from a member of the public."

 "Being a member of a disciplined force, he was duty bound to maintain integrity at every step of his service, even when he was having only one year service at the relevant time," added the bench.

The Court referred to State of Karnataka and another Vs. N. Gangaraj, [2020 (2) S.C.T. 170], in which the Apex Court placed reliance upon a three Judge Bench judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Sree Rama Rao, [AIR 1963 Sc, 1723], wherein it was held that “High Court is not a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated”.

While noting that the disciplinary action was upheld by the  Revisional Authority and also by CAT, the Court said, "it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities to present his case in the defence."

In the enquiry report a reference has been made to statement of the woman, wherein she identified both the constables including petitioner as those two persons who alongwith another police personnel had harassed her and misbehaved with her on that night, said the Court.

The Court further observed that Tribunal has rightly held that an ordinary and prudent man could come to conclusion that when put on duty as a team, the team is responsible for the consequences of the incident or the complaint raised by a public member on any action by the team.

Agreeing with CAT's order, the bench said that the punishment is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the conscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law chose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and causing harassment.

"So when the enquiry has been held according to the prescribed procedure, there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings and there is no material regarding mala fide on the part of the authorities and the punishment imposed is not excessive, then no interference in the impugned orders is required by this Court," the bench opined.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Rohit Seth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. Anand Bishnoi, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh andPrateek Mahajan, Sr. Panel Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh for respondents No.2 to 5.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 218

Case Title: Pardeep Kumar v. UOI & Ors

Click here to read/download the order