Disciplinary penalty quashed for lack of proportionality where official was not solely responsible for delay.

The petitioner, while serving as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) in Rewa, was issued a show-cause notice on 27.01.2014 alleging dereliction of duty.

It was alleged that despite evidence of offenses under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in a 2009 crime enquiry, the petitioner failed to instruct the SHO to register a case and kept the case diary pending from January 2009 to October 2010.

Following an enquiry report dated 04.01.2011, which suggested the petitioner was not solely responsible for the delay, the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect via order dated 02.06.2014.

This order was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority on 12.06.2015. The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities erred in law by failing to consider the petitioner's reply and the enquiry report's findings regarding shared responsibility for the delay.

2. Whether the punishment of withholding one increment was proportionate to the alleged misconduct of dereliction of duty.

The court primarily assessed the validity of administrative action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the proportionality of punishments in service law.

It considered the procedural requirements of departmental enquiries where a disciplinary authority takes exception to an enquiry report.

While the core criminal matter involved Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, the administrative focus was on the standard of "dereliction of duty" and the obligations of a Gazetted Officer (DSP level) to comply with senior mandates for prompt registration of FIRs.

The Court examined the enquiry report and noted that while the petitioner held the case diary for approximately 11 months, he had issued instructions to the SHO to appear for discussions, which the SHO ignored.

The Court observed that the diary moved back and forth between the petitioner and the SHO, indicating that the SHO was also reluctant to perform his duty. Consequently, the Court reasoned that the petitioner could not be made a "scapegoat" for the laboratory delay when the responsibility was shared.

However, the Court maintained that as a DSP-level officer, the petitioner had a heightened duty to ensure prompt registration of heinous crimes like murder. Applying the principle of proportionality, the Court concluded that while the petitioner was not entirely blameless, the formal punishment of withholding an increment was excessive given the contributory negligence of the SHO.

It quashed the impugned disciplinary order dated 02.06.2014 and the appellate order dated 12.06.2015. The Court substituted the penalty with a formal warning to the petitioner to remain attentive to the orders of higher authorities and diligent in his duties in the future. The petition was accordingly disposed of.