Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces Punishment of Police Officer for Corruption Allegations; Holds Forfeiture of Five Increments Disproportionate

Case Name: Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026

Citation: CWP-2145-2017

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although the petitioner, a police officer, was not exonerated of misconduct involving interference in a private monetary dispute and association with criminal elements, the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect, coupled with consequential premature retirement at the age of 55 years, was grossly disproportionate. Applying the doctrine of proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court reduced the punishment to forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.

Summary: The petitioner joined the Haryana Police as a Constable in 1989 and was later promoted to the rank of EASI. While on deputation with the State Crime Branch, a complaint was lodged alleging that he had demanded money and a mobile phone from private individuals involved in gambling-related financial disputes. A departmental inquiry was initiated in 2016, which concluded that the petitioner had misused his official position, threatened private persons by showing call records from an earlier case, and demanded money and a mobile phone, thereby tarnishing the image of the police force.

Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the appellate authority and the Director General of Police respectively. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the punishment as excessive and disproportionate, particularly since the alleged audio recording relied upon during inquiry was never produced, and the financial dispute between the private parties had already been settled.

The High Court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner had indeed intervened in a private monetary dispute and that his conduct did not merit complete exoneration. However, the Court noted that the punishment had severe civil consequences. Apart from forfeiture of increments, the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report was downgraded and he was retired at the age of 55 years, resulting in substantial financial loss over several years.

Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that punishment in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The Court observed that although some misconduct was established, the cumulative impact of the penalty was excessively harsh and violated the principle of proportionality.

Considering that nearly ten years had elapsed since the alleged misconduct and that the petitioner had already retired, the Court declined to remand the matter for reconsideration and instead exercised its own discretion to modify the punishment.

Decision: Writ was allowed in part. The punishment was modified from forfeiture of five increments to forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect. Consequential arrears arising out of modification were directed to be paid within six months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable.