Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Haryana Police Constable for Leaking Location of Protected Couple; Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters
Case Name: Jai Inder v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Decision: 09 February 2026
Citation: CWP-19560-2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental proceedings unless there is procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or perversity. The Court upheld the dismissal of a Haryana Police constable who was found guilty of leaking the location of a protected couple, holding that the punishment was not disproportionate and did not warrant interference.
Summary: The petitioner, a Constable recruited in the Haryana Police on 15.04.1992, was entrusted on 15.06.2007 along with other officials to provide protection to a couple, Manoj and Babli, who had solemnized marriage against the wishes of the girl’s family. The couple was subsequently murdered by Gurdev Singh after they were allowed to board a Haryana Roadways bus.
Scrutiny of call detail records revealed that the petitioner and SHO SI Jagbir Singh were in regular contact with Gurdev Singh and had disclosed the location of the couple. Departmental proceedings were initiated against both officers. While SI Jagbir Singh was exonerated, the petitioner was found guilty. A show-cause notice proposing dismissal was issued, and upon consideration of the inquiry report dated 25.04.2008, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 29.04.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service.
The petitioner’s appeal before the Inspector General of Police was initially allowed, resulting in reinstatement. However, the Director General of Police exercised powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), recorded a disagreement note, issued a fresh show-cause notice, and restored the dismissal order on 11.08.2009. The statutory appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Haryana, was rejected on 02.07.2013.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the dismissal order. The Court examined the settled law on judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, relying upon precedents including Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Union of India v. Subrata Nath. It reiterated that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority. Interference is permissible only where there is lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, admission of inadmissible evidence, exclusion of admissible evidence, or findings based on no evidence.
Upon perusal of the record, the Court found that the petitioner was responsible for ensuring the safety of the couple and had passed on information regarding their location to the accused who committed the murder. The Court described the conduct as reprehensible and deplorable. It held that the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity during departmental proceedings and that no material irregularity or infirmity was demonstrated.
The Court further held that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate in light of the gravity of the misconduct.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner.