Court affirms limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of Jai Inder, a former constable in the Haryana Police, for his role in leaking sensitive information that led to the murder of a couple under police protection. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, emphasized the limited scope of interference by the High Court in disciplinary proceedings, reiterating that the court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence but can only assess procedural correctness and proportionality of punishment.
The case revolved around the 2007 murder of Manoj and Babli, a couple who had married against family wishes and were under police protection. The inquiry revealed that Jai Inder, along with SHO Jagbir Singh, had been in contact with Gurdev Singh, a relative of the deceased, and had disclosed the couple's location, leading to their murder. Although SHO Jagbir Singh was exonerated, Jai Inder was found guilty and dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry.
Jai Inder's appeal to the Inspector General of Police led to his temporary reinstatement, but the Director General of Police reversed this decision, restoring the dismissal. Subsequent appeals to the Home Department and the High Court were unsuccessful.
The court highlighted the principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari under Article 226, emphasizing that such writs can correct jurisdictional errors but cannot re-open factual findings unless based on no evidence or influenced by inadmissible evidence. The judgment reaffirms that disciplinary authorities, as fact-finding bodies, have the discretion to impose punishment based on the gravity of misconduct, and judicial review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and justice.
The court concluded that the dismissal was justified given the gravity of the misconduct, finding no procedural irregularities in the authorities' decision-making process. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of disciplinary proceedings and the necessity of upholding stringent standards for public servants, particularly in law enforcement.
Bottom Line:
Jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is limited in disciplinary proceedings, focusing on procedural correctness and proportionality of punishment, without re-appreciating evidence or acting as an appellate authority.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Jai Inder v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2851173
