Doctrine of Proportionality: Punishment Must Be Commensurate With Gravity of Misconduct: Punjab and Haryana High Court

“Any penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”— In a seminal ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Jagmohan Bansal, has modified the punishment imposed on a Head Constable, holding that the penalty of permanent forfeiture of increments was excessive for a minor lapse in reporting the loss of a service animal.

The case traces back to June 2000, involving Petitioner Jagmal Singh, then a Head Constable in the Dog Squad, CID Unit. On the intervening night of June 19-20, 2000, a service dog named ‘Laika’ went missing. The animal was physically in the custody of a Kennel Man, Constable Parmod Kumar, who informed the petitioner of the loss the following morning.

While the petitioner attempted to locate the animal and subsequently informed Inspector Bishan Dayal, leading to the registration of a Daily Diary Report (DDR) on June 22, 2000, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings. Although the inquiry exonerated the petitioner regarding the actual loss of the animal (which was recovered a month later), he was held guilty of a procedural lapse: failing to inform his seniors immediately. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect, which was later reduced by the Appellate Authority to the forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.

“Reasonable implied intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictated.”

The Doctrine of Proportionality and Article 14

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the punishment awarded was proportionate to the proven misconduct. Justice Bansal, relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reiterated that administrative action must pass the test of proportionality.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not responsible for the escape of the service animal, which occurred during a neighborhood marriage function while the dog was in the custody of another official. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed informed his seniors, albeit with a minor delay of one day.

Judicial Reasoning: Arbitrariness in Penalty

The Bench held that the State authorities acted mechanically in inflicting a harsh penalty for what was essentially a minor communication lapse. The Court underscored that under Article 14 of the Constitution, a punishment that is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.”

Avoidance of Remand Due to Delay

Typically, when a Court finds a punishment disproportionate, the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. However, Justice Bansal exercised judicial discretion to modify the punishment directly, noting that the litigation had been pending since 2005.

The Court observed that remanding the matter after a lapse of more than two decades would only multiply litigation and cause undue hardship. Consequently, the Court modified the punishment from forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect to forfeiture of two increments with temporary effect. The State has been directed to pay the arrears arising from this modification within six months, failing which an interest of 7.5% per annum will be levied.

Date of Decision: 24/12/2025