RSA No.1561 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1561 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 Jagdish Chand ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff thereby upholding the punishment order of reduction in rank on the finding that when he was incharge of the escort guard an under trial escaped from custody. Following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- “a) Whether the learned courts below failed to appreciate that departmental inquiry suffered from procedural lacuna of non-compliance with Rule 16.36 of Punjab Police Rules? b) Whether merely naming of the plaintiff in the FIR though not being challaned amounted to his prosecution, so as to exclude Rule 16.36 PPR (reproduced in Para 16 of lower appellate court judgment)? c) Whether courts below erred in failing to appreciate RSA No.1561 of 2009 (O&M) -2- that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence and were arbitrary? After the plaintiff was exonerated by ASI Jagran Singh investigating officer, and it was held that only Const. Rajesh Kumar who had taken the convict to the toilet from where he escaped, alone was negligent, the plaintiff could be held guilty of misconduct, particularly when it was found that the plaintiff had gone to take meals? d) Whether the courts below failed to appreciate that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate? Proportionality is now recognized as a part of non arbitrariness and a valid ground of Judicial review under Article 14? e) Whether the decisions of learned courts below are vitiated being perverse, arbitrary and misdirected on law and facts on file?” It would be seen that questions No.'a', first part of 'c' and 'e' are all questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me not only through the findings of the Courts below but also through the evidence led in the inquiry proceedings. However, I am not being persuaded to hold that the findings are based on no evidence or it is based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse. With regard to question no.'b', the learned lower Appellate Court has considered this question and has rightly held that since a criminal case have already been registered there was no need to take the concurrence RSA No.1561 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of District Magistrate. As regards the second part of questions no.'c' and 'd', it would be seen that an under trial prisoner had escaped from police custody of whom the appellant was incharge. It is well known that judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. In the case of Union of India and another vs. S. S. Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “...The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty.....” In the circumstances, I have not been able to persuade myself that the action of the respondents is so perverse as to shock the judicial conscience. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 29, 2009 JUDGE ashish