In a significant ruling that revisits a quarter-century-old disciplinary case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has modified the punishment of a police head constable who faced action after a service dog named 'Laika' went missing. The court held that the penalty of permanently forfeiting his increments was disproportionate to the lapse of not immediately informing superiors about the dog's disappearance.
The Case of the Missing Canine
The matter dates back 25 years and involved Head Constable Jagmal Singh, who was employed in the Dog Squad of the CID Unit in Hisar. The service dog, Laika, was lost during a neighbourhood marriage function when she managed to free herself. The canine was reportedly recovered from a private individual about a month later.
Singh faced disciplinary proceedings not for the loss of the dog itself, but specifically for failing to inform his seniors "at the earliest" about the incident. The original disciplinary authority had ordered the forfeiture of five of his annual increments with permanent effect. This was later reduced on appeal to the forfeiture of two increments, but the permanent nature of the punishment remained.
Court's Ruling on Proportionality
Hearing Singh's plea, Justice Jagmohan Bansal delivered an order on December 24, 2025, that underscored the legal principle of 'proportionality'. The court observed that while there was a minor lapse on the petitioner's part, the punishment awarded was not commensurate with the misconduct.
"There was a minor lapse on the part of the petitioner; however, the punishment awarded was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct," the court stated in its order. Notably, the bench pointed out that no action was taken against the kennel man, a constable who was in direct custody of the service animal at the time.
Consequently, the High Court modified the punishment from forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect to forfeiture with temporary effect. Justice Bansal also decided against remanding the case back to the authorities for a fresh review, emphasizing that nearly two decades had already passed since the incident.
A Long-Standing Legal Principle
In its detailed order, the court elaborated on the jurisprudential weight of the proportionality principle in Indian law. Justice Bansal highlighted that, unlike English courts historically, Indian courts have not suffered from a "disability" in scrutinizing legislation and administrative action against this standard since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950.
"Ever since 1950, the principle of 'proportionality' has indeed been applied vigorously to legislative and administrative action in India," the order read. It further noted that examining the proportionality of punishment has been a "common feature" in the High Courts and the Supreme Court over the last fifty years, with thousands of cases decided on these grounds.
During the hearings, Singh's advocate, Tapan Kumar, argued that his client was neither guilty of the lapse nor of the loss of the dog. He contended the penalty was grossly disproportionate. The state, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajni Gupta, defended the original orders, arguing there was no ground for judicial interference.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative penalties are just, fair, and balanced, even when revisiting cases from the distant past.
