Bhag Singh v. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research and Ors.

Service law / disciplinary punishment – proportionality

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Mar 2026CWP/26144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: service law; disciplinary proceedings; penalty of dismissal; proportionality; strikingly disproportionate; perversity; irrationality; judicial review; Article 226; Article 227; Article 32; CRPF disciplined force; indiscipline and insubordination; threats to superior; reinstatement; remittal to disciplinary authority; denial of back wages; Surinder Kumar; Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592. Caveat: source text largely corrupted (encoding mojibake); court, case number, bench, dates, party names, advocates and operative disposition unrecoverable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhag Singh Vs Postgraduate Institute of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with the penalty of dismissal imposed on proved charges of indiscipline and insubordination (including threats to the superior) on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

For a member of the CRPF, a disciplined force, dismissed on proved charges of indiscipline and insubordination, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and neither disproportionate nor strikingly disproportionate; the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in interfering with the dismissal and ordering reinstatement.

¶33

Key takeaways

Interference with a punishment of dismissal on the ground of disproportionality is warranted only where the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, i.e., in an extreme case where, on the face of it, there is perversity or irrationality; mere disproportionality does not suffice (position discussed with reference to Surinder Kumar and Union of India v. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592).¶32
Where a punishment is found disproportionate to the proved misconduct, the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment; a Division Bench which finds the dismissal disproportionate but imposes no further punishment except denial of back wages renders its judgment and order unsustainable.¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / disciplinary punishment - proportionality - judicial review (source document heavily corrupted; header, parties, bench and operative parts illegible). The legible analysis paragraphs state: judicial review under Article 226/227/32 of a punishment of dismissal is warranted only where the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, i.e., in an extreme case of perversity or irrationality (discussion referencing Surinder Kumar (supra) and Union of India v. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592); a dismissal imposed on a member of the CRPF, a disciplined force, on proved charges of indiscipline and insubordination and threats to the superior was justified and neither disproportionate nor strikingly disproportionate; where a punishment is found disproportionate, the correct course is remittal to the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment, and a Division Bench order that reinstated the respondent while imposing no punishment beyond denial of back wages is characterized as unsustainable. Whether the legible passage is this court's own reasoning or a block quotation from a precedent could not be established from the damaged text; the final disposition is not legible.

��

��

�� 

��

��

�� !"!�#�$��%�&%��

�'�(�)!#('

��%%%��!�!�#�*

+�*","��

��"�(�-,��#"�!�,��.�-! �/��-, ��!�# 0��"�� '��#-��'�*"

¶11

��%%%%��"1�#-�#�"

¶12

��.$ ��2�3��.�%��)��)�.��)��)�� 2�3��.�%��)��+�4�)�)��

��

��

��

��

�� !��!�� "�#$�"#�%�&��'��(�)��+��,-.�� /���� .��!��0��.��!��&��1��/���� ) 2��+�� !��+��3�� +��!��*�� 4��

¶18

"� ��+��4��5��+��6%%��! ��2��2��+�� !�� ��+�2��7�#6��6,6��8���� !����!��*��

¶19

2�� 5��2� ��9��!�� AARTI SHARMA 2026.03.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

�� 

¶21

�� 2�� ��2��7�#6��6,6���2��7�#6��6,:��8� �� !��2�� 2��2�� 7�#6��6,: ��7�#6��6,6 �2��2�� + ��+ �� !�� !�� $� ;��!��2�� 2��!��+��!��2�� !�* ��2�� !����2�� +�� !�� ��+�� 2��

¶22

:� ;��!��2�� !�� 2��+��!��""�#,�"#�" &��'��-�,)��2��2�� !�� 2�� 2�� #7�#:�"#�:�&��'��-"#)�� !��2�� "$�#"�"#�<�&��'��-"")��/��""�#,�"#�"�&��'�� -�,)��#7�#:�"#�:�&��'��-"#)��2� ��"$�#"�"#�<�&��'��-"") 2��4�� +�� !��/���� 2��2��!��+�� /���� +��!��"�#$�"#�%�&��'��-�)��

¶23

:� =��!��!���.�� ��!��2��+�� !����+��! ��!��2��": +��2��*� AARTI SHARMA 2026.03.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

�� &�

¶25

��2�� + �� +�� ,� 5�� !�� !��2��* �� <� /��!��2����!��+�� !��2�� !�� !�� *��2��

¶26

7� /�� 2�� +��� +�� >��?* ��.�� !�� "��#�$�!��!��%��&%��!�'�!�!��

¶27

2��*�� !�� !�� .�� ! +��!�� !��@� ��!��4��!��-

¶28

A6.2 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

¶29

AARTI SHARMA 2026.03.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

��

¶31

��

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

6.4 At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable.”

¶35

%�

¶36

��4��+�2�+��

¶37

��+�2��! +��!����*��!��

¶38

AARTI SHARMA 2026.03.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

�� 5�

¶40

��+��2��2� �� + ��!��2��+��4�� 2��!�� 2� �� ��!�� 2����*+��.�� 2�