Himachal Pradesh High Court | Punishment Without Proof Of Misconduct Is Perversity | Orders Against Constable Quashed, Service Benefits Restored
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya allowed a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings and subsequent punishment orders. The Court quashed the orders that had imposed forfeiture of service for increments on a police constable and directed restoration of all service benefits taken away as a consequence of the impugned orders. Justice Vaidya held that the findings against the petitioner were not supported by any evidence on record and therefore could not be sustained. The Court concluded that the disciplinary authority and inquiry officer had failed to establish any misconduct or dereliction of duty, rendering the orders perverse in law. The matter was disposed of with directions to restore the benefits in full.
The case arose from disciplinary action taken against a constable of the Himachal Pradesh Armed Police who had been posted at the residence of the then Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The petitioner was serving as a constable in the 3rd Battalion, H.P. Armed Police, and was assigned guard duty at the residential complex of the Chief Minister.
On 18 February 2002, the petitioner was on duty at Post No.5 within the high-security residential complex. At approximately 4:00 PM, a suspected individual allegedly trespassed into the security zone of the Chief Minister’s residence. The person intruded through barbed wire and shortly thereafter escaped, leaving behind his bag.
Following the incident, disciplinary inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner along with Sub Inspector Bhim Singh, Constable Shesh Ram (No.689), and Constable Ram Pal (No.886). The charges framed against the petitioner specified failures in noticing, reacting, and preventing the intrusion.
The charge sheet included four specific allegations: first, that the petitioner failed in preventive duty to notice the entry of the suspected person who entered from the area of responsibility of another post, ran a distance of 150 meters, and disappeared from the petitioner’s area of responsibility; second, that he failed to apprehend the intruder; third, that his failure allowed a criminal trespass into the high-security compound; and fourth, that he failed to react as required, thereby facilitating the culprit’s disappearance.
The inquiry officer appointed, Deputy Superintendent of Police D.W. Negi, submitted his report dated 1 August 2002. He held charges 1 and 4 as proved against the petitioner. Based on this inquiry, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice proposing forfeiture of ten years of service permanently for future increments. The petitioner replied, but his defense was not found satisfactory.
By order dated 27 October 2002, the disciplinary authority-imposed punishment of forfeiture of four years of permanent service for increments. The petitioner’s service appeal was dismissed on 2 September 2003 and his revision petition met the same fate on 10 June 2004. Thereafter, the present petition was filed seeking to quash the impugned orders.
The petitioner contended that there was no evidence against him. He argued that the trespasser had neither entered through the area under his control nor exited through it. Consequently, he claimed that at no point was the alleged intruder within his vision or range of responsibility. His defense was that he could not have intervened since the incident did not occur within his post area. Additionally, he explained that during the incident he had been approached by an outsider seeking information, which temporarily diverted his attention.
The State respondents contested the petition, defending the disciplinary action as justified. They maintained that the inquiry officer’s findings and the disciplinary authority’s conclusions established negligence and dereliction of duty.
The Court, after hearing both sides, examined the record, including statements of 15 prosecution witnesses, inquiry report, punishment order, and appellate and revisional decisions.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, after requisitioning and examining the original records of the inquiry, recorded several observations. The Court stated: “From the perusal of the contents of inquiry report, one cannot find anything implicating the petitioner. Neither it has been mentioned as to how the petitioner was responsible in the entire episode nor has it been concluded that what were the specific acts of omission or commission on part of petitioner which could be termed either as dereliction of duty or misconduct.”
The Court further stated: “Thus, the final findings that charges No.1 and 4 stood proved against the petitioner are without any reasons or justification.”
Regarding the show cause notice, the Court noted: “In the said order also, one cannot find any reasons or discussion for arriving at such a conclusion. The conclusions so arrived at are preceded only by narration of facts. The details of material that weighed with the disciplinary authority for arriving at conclusions have not been disclosed.”
On the punishment order dated 27 October 2002, the Court observed: “Apparently, for returning such finding, the disciplinary authority had relied upon preliminary inquiry report of the incident, which otherwise had faded away and lost relevance after holding of regular Disciplinary Enquiry. Except as above, again there is no reason or finding as to on what basis the petitioner had been found guilty.”
The Court, upon going through statements of 15 prosecution witnesses, recorded: “I could not find any incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. None of the witnesses had stated that the alleged trespasser was within the sight or jurisdiction of petitioner or despite of having sighted the trespasser, he had failed to act.” It further noted: “The only fact that has been substantiated is that the petitioner was on duty at Post No.5.”
The Court stated that the petitioner had explained in his defense that he was not aware of the incident since neither entry nor exit of the trespasser was within his post area. He also mentioned that he was approached by an outsider during duty, seeking queries, which temporarily engaged his attention. The Court found this defense consistent with the absence of any contradictory evidence.
The Court further observed that both appellate and revisional orders lacked discussion on evidence. It recorded: “Even in the entire inquiry report itself, there was not even a whisper about any evidence which was found incriminating against the petitioner.”
Justice Vaidya held that the impugned findings were unsustainable. The Court stated: “The impugned orders... are clearly perverse as the findings recorded therein are not borne from the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer or any other material on record. In fact, the findings which are not based on evidence or otherwise not borne from the record are no findings in the eyes of law.”
The Court further recorded: “The conduct of enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority clearly lacked fairness which by itself becomes antithetic to the principles enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
On consequences of punishment without misconduct proof, the Court noted: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part, but since the punishment has been sought to be imposed without proof of any incriminating circumstance against petitioner, such a perverse action cannot be sustained.”
Justice Vaidya concluded the matter with the following directions: “In result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 27.10.2002, 02.09.2003 and 10.06.2004, Annexures PI, PK & PL, respectively are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore all the service benefits to the petitioner as were taken away as result of aforesaid orders.”
The Court disposed of the petition along with any pending applications. The directive clearly mandated restoration of all benefits of service withdrawn as a result of the disciplinary action.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.
Case Title: Hoshiar Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:27075
Case Number: CWPOA No.749 of 2019
Bench: Justice Satyen Vaidya
