The High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently made a ruling regarding disciplinary action taken against a police officer named Pardeep Kumar. The case, involved a petition filed by Pardeep Kumar to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, determined the outcome of Pardeep Kumar's challenge.

The case centered on the issuance of a charge sheet and subsequent penalties by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, against Pardeep Kumar, the petitioner. Pardeep Kumar sought to have these actions nullified, arguing that they were unjust and lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges against him.

In their decision, the judges carefully evaluated the arguments presented in the case. Pardeep Kumar's legal representative argued that his client was unfairly held accountable for the actions of another police officer during a joint patrol duty. The petitioner asserted that he had not been involved in any wrongdoing and claimed that the disciplinary authorities had not adequately considered the pertinent evidence in his defense.

On the other hand, the respondents, representing the Central Administrative Tribunal and other relevant authorities, contended that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in accordance with established procedures. They asserted that there was ample evidence to support the charges against Pardeep Kumar and argued that the penalty imposed was justified in light of the alleged misconduct.

In their judgment, the High Court judges cited legal principles and precedent to substantiate their decision. The court stressed that the role of judicial review was not to reexamine evidence or act as an appellate body for disciplinary proceedings. The judges noted that the proceedings against Pardeep Kumar had adhered to due process, and there was substantial evidence to substantiate the charges against him.

In their decision, the judges remarked, "Upon examining the substantiated allegations and the penalty applied to the petitioner, it becomes evident that the penalty is not unduly severe, and it does not shock the conscience of a reasonable person. This is especially pertinent given the fact that a law enforcer, who is supposed to uphold the law, engaged in unlawful activities by seeking illegal favors and causing distress."

In the end, the High Court rejected the writ petition, confirming the disciplinary action against Pardeep Kumar.

Case: Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India and others, CWP-37381-2018.