Punjab and Haryana High Court Intervenes in Police Extortion Case, Slashes Punishment
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made a significant ruling by reducing the disciplinary penalty against a sub-inspector accused of extortion, despite acknowledging his guilt based on witness testimony. This decision highlights the court's emphasis on the principle of proportionality in punishment, ensuring that penalties align with the nature of the offence.
Court's Rationale for Reducing the Punishment
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, heard a plea from the sub-inspector challenging the departmental authorities' orders. The officer had been awarded a punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect. Justice Bansal stated that this penalty could not be considered proportionate to the alleged misconduct under any circumstances.
The court observed that the petitioner was subjected to punishment based on an audio recording and a preliminary inquiry. However, the department failed to produce the alleged audio recording as ordered, citing corruption of the CD. This failure raised questions about the evidence's reliability.
In its order, the court underscored that if a punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The principle of proportionality must be followed by all quasi-judicial and judicial authorities, regardless of the offence's nature.
Findings and Implications of the Case
From the statements of prime witnesses and produced evidence, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entirely innocent. However, the awarded punishment was deemed excessive. The sub-inspector lost at least 50% of his salary for three years and three increments due to compulsory retirement at age 55, a consequence the court found disproportionate.
The court reduced the quantum of punishment from forfeiture of five increments to two increments with permanent effect. This adjustment aims to balance accountability with fairness, ensuring that disciplinary actions do not overreach.
Background of the Extortion Allegations
The petitioner joined the police force as a constable in 1989 and was later promoted to Extension Assistant Sub-Inspector (EASI). In 2015, while on deputation to the state crime branch, he was accused of demanding a mobile phone and Rs 25,000 in cash from a complainant. The allegations included misusing his office by using old call records to threaten individuals to settle a private financial dispute involving a gambler.
A departmental inquiry in 2016 found him guilty of gross negligence and tarnishing the police force's image. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect, coupled with a downgraded annual confidential report (ACR), leading to his compulsory retirement.
The petitioner appealed twice to the appellate authority, but the director general of police dismissed the appeals. He argued that the cumulative punishment was excessive and that the inquiry officer did not properly examine the audio recording.
Conclusion: Upholding Legal Principles in Disciplinary Matters
This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that punishments are just and proportionate. The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, protecting individuals from excessive penalties while upholding accountability.
