Last Updated on March 16, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Punishment of Constable After 20-Year Legal Battle in a case of Increment Forfeiture.
In a significant judgment pertaining to Increment Forfeiture Service Matter , the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside disciplinary punishment imposed on a police constable, holding that departmental authorities acted arbitrarily despite the inquiry officer finding the constable innocent.
The decision highlights the importance of fairness and proportionality in departmental proceedings.
Key Aspects of Increment Forfeiture:
- Punishment Mechanism: Increment of a police officer or public servant can be withheld as a disciplinary measure, notes Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- Forfeiture of Service: Approved service for increments may be forfeited either temporarily or permanently, which may entail deferment of increments or a reduction in pay, according to Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- Effect on Seniority: When forfeiture of approved service is ordered, the employee’s name can be moved down in seniority, LegitQuest.
- Disproportionate Penalty: Courts can overturn forfeiture orders if the penalty is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, Court Book.
- Notional Increment: The Supreme Court has clarified that notional increments (e.g., on July 1st after retirement on June 30th) can be reckoned only for calculating pension, not other benefits, per C.S.I.R..
- Restrictions: Improper or arbitrary actions in service matters may be challenged under the principle of proportionality, per Instagram and Court Book.
Increment forfeiture in service law involves withholding or reducing an employee’s annual pay increment as a penalty for misconduct, often requiring specific orders regarding whether the forfeiture is temporary or permanent and its effect on future, notes Punjab and Haryana High Court. This punitive action can lower seniority and reduce pay scales.
Increment Forfeiture Service Matter -CASE Background
The case involved a constable who had joined the Haryana Police in 1989. In 2003, a dispute occurred between the constable and a Head Constable at Police Post Kalanaur.
Following the incident, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against the constable alleging that he:
- Misbehaved with his senior officer
- Took a government motorcycle from the police station without permission
After conducting a departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer found that the allegations were not substantiated.
The inquiry report noted that:
- The constable had actually suffered an eye injury during the altercation.
- Medical evidence supported his claim of injury.
- The government motorcycle had not been taken away as alleged and the logbook confirmed it remained in proper condition.
Departmental Action Despite Exoneration
Despite the inquiry officer’s findings clearing the constable of the charges, the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice and imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of five increments with permanent effect.
The constable challenged the punishment through departmental appeal and revision, but both were dismissed by higher authorities.
Eventually, he approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Also Read-Disciplinary Proceedings Procedure in India
High Court’s Observations on Increment Forfeiture
Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment without recording any disagreement note against the findings of the inquiry officer.
The Court held that such action was improper because the inquiry officer had clearly concluded that the constable was innocent of the major allegations.
The Court further emphasized the constitutional principle of proportionality, noting that punishment imposed by authorities must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Citing Supreme Court judgments such as Om Kumar v Union of India and Bhagat Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that a disproportionate penalty violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court found that the disciplinary proceedings reflected a casual approach by authorities and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the Court:
- Set aside the punishment orders passed by departmental authorities
- Directed payment of ₹1,10,000 as costs to the petitioner
- Ordered release of service arrears within six months
- Directed payment of 6% interest, increasing to 9% if payment is delayed.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces important principles in service law:
- Departmental authorities cannot punish an employee without valid reasons when the inquiry report exonerates them.
- If authorities disagree with an inquiry report, they must record reasons before imposing punishment.
- Penalties must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- Courts can intervene when disciplinary proceedings result in injustice.
- Ranjit Singh vs Commandant: Rules that forfeiture of approved service for increment is covered under relevant state/federal Service Rules, LegitQuest.
- Pensionary Service Forfeiture: Resignation or dismissal, as per bank regulations, can result in the forfeiture of all previous service for pension purposes, notes CaseMine.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fairness in departmental proceedings. By setting aside the punishment and awarding compensation, the High Court ensured that an employee who fought a legal battle for two decades finally received justice.
