Punjab and Haryana High Court steps in: Why this sub-inspector’s punishment for extortion was slashed despite ‘guilt’

“The petitioner was subjected to punishment based on an audio recording and a preliminary inquiry, but the department, despite specific orders of the court, has failed to produce the alleged audio recording because the CD has corrupted,” the court observed.

The order added that if punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Findings

• Punishment should be incommensurate to the alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should be followed by all quasi-judicial and judicial authorities while awarding punishment irrespective of the nature of the offence.
• As per the principle of proportionality, even punishment prescribed by legislation must be incommensurate to the alleged offence.
• From the statement of the prime witnesses and the produced evidence, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was innocent and was not guilty at all.
• According to the awarded punishment, on account of retirement at the age of 55 years, he lost at least 50 per cent of his salary for three years, as well as three increments.
• By no means or reasons, awarded punishment can be called proportionate to alleged misconduct.
• The department was bound to award punishment proportionate to the alleged offence.
• The court reduced the quantum of punishment from forfeiture of five increments to two increments with permanent effect.

Background

• The petitioner joined the police as a constable in 1989 and was later promoted to Extension Assistant Sub-Inspector (EASI).
• While on deputation to the state crime branch in 2015, he was accused of demanding money and a mobile phone from one of the complainants.
• In 2016, the departmental inquiry concluded that he had misused his office by using old call records to threaten individuals to settle a private financial dispute involving a gambler.
• The inquiry officer found the constable guilty of gross negligence and tarnishing the image of the police force.
• Following this finding, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect.
• This penalty, coupled with a downgraded annual confidential report (ACR), led to the constable’s compulsory retirement at age 55.
• The petitioner moved twice to the appellate authority against the disciplinary action, but it was dismissed by the director general of police.
• The petitioner argued that this cumulative punishment was excessive, and the inquiry officer did not examine the alleged audio recording in the true spirit.
• He further submitted that he was subjected to the punishment of forfeiture of five increments, which culminated in his retirement at the age of 55 years, besides financial loss to him.