CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CM-12534-CWP-2025 in/& CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision :12.09.2025 Baljit Singh ..Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Addl Standing Counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5-U.T. Chd. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-12534-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Notice of the application to the respondents. Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Addl. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5-U.T. Chandigarh and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) -2- hearing today itself. CWP-1491-2018 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the challenge raised by the petitioner-constable to the imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by the respondents, was declined. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in a manner required and even the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and hence, the imposition of punishment was bad, which fact has been ignored by the punishing authority, appellate authority, revisional authority as well as by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P/1), which fact forced the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against him and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is incorrect that the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner as no such objection has ever been taken by the petitioner before any of the authority but the same is being raised for the first time before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that once, the allegation that the petitioner under the influence of liquor has abused the owner of the Hotel Lucky Plaza Mr. Ram Chander and a customer and in the medical report it has already been recorded that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) -3- relevant point of time, the punishment has been imposed which is proportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner, which punishment has already been upheld by all the three authorities including the Tribunal hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. The first argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment in the departmental proceedings which fact is being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. In order to verify the genuineness of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out as to whether the said objection has ever been taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority, revisional authority or before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that the said objection was never taken before any of the authority. 8. Once, the said objection that the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment, has never been taken or proved before any of the authority, raising the same before this Court and that too for the very first time, cannot be allowed especially, when the said fact is being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents hence, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into account so as to set aside the punishment which has already been upheld by the three authorities mentioned hereinbefore. 9. 9. Further, qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) -4- disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against him, it may be noticed that once it is a conceded fact that petitioner is a police officer who’s duty is to maintain the law and order was found in an inebriated state and was medically checked up and was found to be under the influence of liquor, the punishment of stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner. Such a conduct amounts to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force thereby threatening the public peace and tranquility. 10. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.219 of 2023 titled as, Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar decided on 19.01.2023, the disproportionate punishment can also not to be interfered with unless and until the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the employee concerned. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:- ‘6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1491-2018 (O&M) -5- 6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent.’ 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law. 12. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order passed by the punishing authority, appellate authority, revisional authority or by the Tribunal has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any is also disposed of . (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) September 12, 2025 JUDGE aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document