Nearly two decades after a police dog died while serving with the Haryana Police's Dog Squad, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the unit's then in-charge, upholding the punishment imposed on him in departmental proceedings. The Bench held that different responsibilities of co-delinquents justified different punishments in the facts of the case.

The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed the appeal filed by the in charge — since deceased — through his legal representatives against the July 10, 2013, judgment of a Single Judge, which had upheld the penalty of stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect imposed upon him.

The case dates back to 2007, when the appellant was posted as in-charge of the Dog Squad in the Haryana Police State Crime Branch. During the sanctioned leave of the dog's regular handler, he deputed a constable to look after the dog. Departmental instructions required fortnightly medical check-ups of dogs in the unit and periodic recording and reporting of their weight to the Superintendent of Police. According to the post-mortem report, the dog died on the night of May 7/8, 2007, after not being fed for three days, resulting in gas filling the stomach and causing congestive heart failure.

Proceedings were then initiated against the two for negligence in the performance of their duties, including failing to ensure that the dog was fed on time, medically examined and weighed. The charges were held proven, following which both were awarded the major punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect. The writ petition filed by the in-charge challenging the punishment was dismissed by the High Court in 2013, leading to the present appeal.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the punishment was discriminatory because co-delinquent, who had also been charge-sheeted and awarded the same punishment through a common order dated November 21, 2007, was subsequently awarded a lesser punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect by the Director-General of Police, Haryana. He also contended that the punishment was disproportionate and that the findings of the inquiry officer were unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Rejecting the plea of discrimination, the High Court observed that "the punishment awarded in disciplinary proceedings depends upon the nature of the allegations proved against each delinquent as well as the degree of responsibility attached to the post held by him."

The Bench further held: "Once, the responsibilities of both the delinquents were different, the disciplinary authority is correct in imposing the respective punishments upon them keeping in view the nature of the allegations established against each delinquent and the responsibility of a particular delinquent."

Dismissing the writ petition in 2013, the Single Judge had observed that police dogs "require special handling, care and love," and that a Dog Squad In-charge "is expected to know not only the nature and personality traits of each of his dogs but the sensitivity of each dog handler."

The court had further observed that "each dog being different in character and individual natures," the In-charge owed "a greater duty" to select the most compatible dog handler whenever the regular handler was on sanctioned leave.

Rejecting the plea of discrimination, the Single Judge had held that "a far greater duty was cast on the Dog Squad in-charge" than on the co-delinquent, who "had no option but to act on the command of his superior."

The Single Judge had concluded that the Dog Squad in-charge had "several options in choosing a suitable dog handler" during the regular handler's absence and that "the degree of negligence in terms of responsibility is far greater in the case of the in-charge Dog Squad than the person chosen by him to look after the dog."