Satyaveer Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

   
    

 



 !"

#$ "%&'&#() * +* +




   



 
 
 

  

 ) ,-

* .
   .-

 


     
 
 !

 
 
    
"

# !

#

  $$$$

  .-/ *

0 1

% & 
   
 

 
  
 
 !
''(
 
'')

 
*   

+  

,



 
 


'- -.

'-%/


0
1/

2
+ 
# !

! 




3 4
 


-5 -) '-%/


0
1)

2
6 
# !

! 
  '

& 
   
" 
 
! 
7

* 2!
 %% %% '--8

& 
  
 
9 !
: 
  
9
!!

 

9 
2 
9


'5

 
'-
9 

& 
   
9 
2 
9

9
'- -8 '-%5

'% -8 '-%5

'5

 
'-


& 
  
 
9 !
: 
3  
3
 

 !

2 
9



3
 9 
9
 
2


'.

-% '-%/

2
   

! 
3




!

9

2
 !!
!!3
2
+ 
# !

! 
3

&

!!
  
 


'- -.

'-%/

 
: 9

 9 

& 
 9 

 9 !
9
 
3
 

 

%-


!
9 
3 
9  



   2
6 
# !

! 
3

9

2
 9 
 


-5 -) '-%/ .


  
29 
 
 9 
3
2
   

   

!! 
9   
"

# !

#

 
 
 
!! 
 9 
3
3

2 
9


'5

 
'-
9 

  
29 
 
   




  !



  
 
9
2
2 
 
2



2 

9 

 

  !

 / +


 
 9 
 

 
 (



!
%( '

 "2
! 
!
%;.5

9
! 2!

 


 

 
<%;.5
!=

! 
> 
9
2
 9 
9
 




9  

9! 


  
9  


 2 ! 
 
9!
   

! 
 
&  
!
 
 
 



3

 9 !
9
 


  
 !!
,


!



 

 
 
 

! 9

  

) !
%( '

%;.5
!

 

 



2!31



 



 

     

 



   

     



     

  

   



     

       

   !"

 #$

    #

 %

 

%

%    

  

      %



 

&



 

 

 ' 

 

     



' 





   ' 







 

  ' 

           

  (     %

%

%







' 

  



  



  ' 

       ) '  



     

*

     + 

 

  "

  

      % 

%

   ,



  %  *

         

    

      



  %  %     

    "

 %%  

  

- ./00 

1   

       

    

   

 

 $



 

 



  

      

       %   

  

  

  

           

 



      

 

  

      

2 

34       + 

   %       

   

 

 , % 

 ,   

 

  %   



 

 



  1 ) (

 

         

   #

  %  

   

%



 

   % 

 



1 ) (5 8.

From the plain reading of above quoted Rule, it is quite evident that there should be allegation of gravest misconduct or continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service. It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be commensurate to alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should be followed. Rule 16.2 of the 1934 Rules embodies guiding factors which should be kept in mind. 9.

The Supreme Court time and again has held that in case Court finds that punishment awarded by authority is disproportionate to alleged misconduct, the Court should remand the matter to competent authority to reconsider quantum of punishment. As per principle of proportionality, punishment prescribed by

legislation must be in commensurate to alleged offence. If punishment is disproportionate to alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, a matter came up for hearing on account of an order of Supreme Court dated 4.5.2000 proposing to re-open the quantum of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on certain officers of the Delhi Development Authority who were connected with the land of the DDA allotted to M/s. Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider imposition of higher degree of punishments in view of the roles of these officers in the said matter. The question posed before the court was whether the right punishments were awarded to the officers in accordance with well known principles of law or whether the punishments required any upward revision. Proportionality as a constitutional doctrine has been highlighted in as follows: "30.

On account of a Chapter on Fundamental Rights in Part III of our Constitution right from 1950, Indian Courts did not suffer from the disability similar to the one experienced by English Courts for declaring as unconstitutional legislation on the principle of proportionality or reading them in a manner consistent with the charter of rights. Ever since 1950, the principle of "proportionality" has indeed been applied vigorously to legislative (and administrative) action in India.

the situation and were not the least restrictive of the choices. The burden of proof to show that the restriction was reasonable lay on the State. "Reasonable restrictions" under Articles 19(2) to (6) could be imposed on these freedoms only by legislation and courts had occasion throughout to consider the proportionality of the restrictions. In numerous judgments of this Court, the extent to which "reasonable restrictions" could be imposed was considered. In Chintamanrao v. State of M.P. [AIR 1951 SC 118: Mahajan, J. (as he then was) observed that "reasonable restrictions" which the State could impose on the fundamental rights "should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public".

"Reasonable" implied intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictated. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invaded the right could not be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it struck a proper balance between the rights guaranteed and the control permissible under Articles 19(2) to (6). Otherwise, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras v. V.G. Row [AIR 1952 SC 196], observed that the Court must keep in mind the "nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time".

This principle of proportionality vis-a-vis legislation was referred to by Jeevan Reddy, J. in State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709 recently. This level of scrutiny has been a common feature in the High Court and the Supreme Court in the last fifty years. Decided cases run into thousands.

31. Article 21 guarantees liberty and has also been subjected to principles of "proportionality". Provisions of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1974 and the Indian Penal Code came up for consideration in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684 the majority upholding the legislation. The dissenting judgment of Bhagwati, J. (see Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) SCC dealt elaborately with "proportionality" and held that the punishment provided by the statute was disproportionate.

32. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of the legislation. Obviously, when the courts considered the question whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia, the courts were examining the validity of the differences and the adequacy of the differences. This is again nothing but the principle of proportionality. There are also cases where legislation or rules have been struck down as being arbitrary in the sense of being unreasonable [see Air India v. NergeshMeerza [(1981) 4 SCC 335 (SCC at pp. 372-373)]. But this latter aspect of striking down legislation only on the basis of "arbitrariness" has been doubted in State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709."

+

     

  

 0
*
!
 
 
 !
3


   

  

9  
3!
2
 ! 

 !
%5

 
*   

+  
& ! 
0

 
" 9 



6 7    ,

      

 

 





    

%   



           

 



*

80  75

%- & 
*
3 !
" 

   

! 
  !



 

 
 
   

3
9 
 9 
 


9  
 

  
2
& !
*

& 
*

 
 
 
   
  





9  !
9



& 







2
   
2!3


 
3  



  

 9  %% +
  

 
!!

3


'- -.

'-%/
 
  
3
 !
 




!

6 
# !

! 



-5 -) '-%/
9 
 
3
  

!
 
5
9  
23
 





2
!!
  
 
   
  

&    
  

 9 
  

  

!

+
 3
 
 
 
2

9!!
 

!
6 
# !

! 

9  !!
 9 
  

 
    %'

+
  

2

9 


3
 9 
 2
!!
  

!! 
9  

& 
2 
3
 !

 

 

3



  
 
   
3



 !
!

9 
3

 ! 
 
2! 
 
 

+
 
2 
! 
 9 
 
  
3
2 

3
 9 
  

!! 
  %.

+
 9!

9




2
9 

   

  
: 9

 9 
3
 
 !

 
*


 

 

9 
 
9
2

 

%-


!

3

& 
   


9



9  !!

 
 

!!
 2 !  
 
9 
3!
9! !
 
!   

& 


 
 
!   
 
  

 
!! 
9  
 
*
9

 


 
: 9

 9 

 

 9 
3 
9! 
 %5   
 
 


2
9 %/  

!   

 
 !!
!
 
 
 '.

-/ '-'/







 #> ?
@ ? A










B6#C
 
 E,


 
2!