Ensuring Proportionality in Disciplinary Punishment: Mandatory Consideration of Police Regulations 226(iii) & (iv) for Constables

Introduction

This judgment arises from an intra‐Court appeal by Ramsagar Sinha, a retired constable of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force, against the dismissal of his service by compulsory retirement. The appellant was charged with insubordination and refusal to perform camp security duty on July 24, 2017, in a Naxalite‐affected area. He contested the sufficiency and proportionality of the punishment, pointing to his age (56 at the time) and physical unfitness, and argued that lesser penalties under Police Regulation 226 should have been applied before resorting to compulsory retirement. The Respondents are the State of Chhattisgarh and various police authorities. The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal on March 11, 2025, quashing the order of compulsory retirement and establishing a new precedent on proportionality in disciplinary action against constables.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court found that:

• The charge against the appellant was limited to refusal of duty on health grounds, without any evidence of hostility or derogatory conduct toward superiors under Section 17(च) of the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Act, 1968.
• Police Regulation 226 clearly stipulates a hierarchy of punishments for constables—ranging from withholding increments ((iii), (iv)) to dismissal only as a last resort.
• Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority considered the lesser penalties available under Regulation 226 before imposing compulsory retirement.
• The punishment of compulsory retirement was thus disproportionate and in violation of the principle of last‐resort dismissal.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders dated January 31, 2018 (disciplinary authority) and June 9, 2018 (appellate authority), and granted the appellant notional pensionary benefits up to his superannuation date of July 31, 2022.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. S.R. Tewari v. Union of India and Another, (2013) 6 SCC 602
This Supreme Court decision emphasized the principle of proportionality in service matters: dismissal must be a last resort, and lesser penalties must be considered first, especially for minor misconduct.

2. Ganesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of M.P. & Others, 2013(2) M.P.H.T. 287 (DB)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench held that when a subordinate officer (e.g., constable) commits a minor breach, authorities must frame punishment in light of rank‐specific regulations rather than impose extreme penalties.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

1. Narrowing the Charge: The alleged misconduct was simple refusal to perform duty while on medical grounds. No evidence of contemptuous language or active hostility toward superiors (Section 17(च), Act of 1968) was found.
2. Hierarchy of Punishments: Police Regulation 226 provides a graduated scale of disciplinary measures for constables:
   • (iii) Withholding of increment (temporary or permanent) for up to one year.
   • (iv) Definite period withholding of an accrued increment for inefficiency or unsatisfactory service (max. one year in first instance).
   Dismissal or compulsory retirement is “the last resource” (226(i)(a)), only warranted when all lesser measures fail. The authorities bypassed these steps.
3. Proportionality and Natural Justice: By failing to explore lesser penalties and ignoring medical evidence, the disciplinary process contravened the principle of proportionality and the rule of natural justice.

Impact

This decision establishes an important precedent in Chhattisgarh (and by persuasive authority elsewhere) that:

• Disciplinary authorities must explicitly record reasons for rejecting lesser penalties before imposing dismissal or compulsory retirement on constables.
• Courts will scrutinize service punishments for proportionality, ensuring rank‐sensitive regulations are applied in sequence.
• Medical or personal circumstances cited by a subordinate must be logically and factually addressed in the inquiry report.

Future service cases will likely reference this judgment to challenge disproportionate disciplinary orders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Police Regulation 226: A rulebook provision that outlines specific punishments for misbehavior by police staff. For constables, it prescribes minor penalties (e.g., losing a pay increment) before resorting to removal from service.

Compulsory Retirement vs. Dismissal: While both end service, compulsory retirement often carries pension benefits; dismissal is harsher, with loss of all service dues. Both, however, require that minor penalties be considered first.

Principle of Proportionality: A legal standard requiring that the severity of a punishment must match the gravity of the misconduct.

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh crystallizes the doctrine that disciplinary authorities must adhere to rank‐specific penalty hierarchies—particularly Police Regulation 226(iii) & (iv) for constables—before imposing compulsory retirement or dismissal. By doing so, the Court has fortified the principle of proportionality in service law and reaffirmed the necessity of reasoned decision‐making in administrative disciplinary proceedings.