Gurugram: In a curious case of a missing police animal, a head constable who spent 25 years fighting a legal battle to clear his name over its disappearance has finally found relief.
On the night between 19 and 20 June in the year 2000, Laika, a service canine with the CID Unit’s Dog Squad in Haryana’s Hisar, managed to slip out of her kennel with wedding celebrations taking place in the neighbourhood. The noise, the commotion, perhaps the smell of food, something drew her out.
While Laika returned unharmed a month later, the incident drew an inquiry.
Head Constable Jagmal Singh, who headed the Dog Squad, learned about the disappearance the next day from Constable Parmod Kumar, the man responsible for Laika’s custody.
Singh searched for Laika, informed his superior, Inspector Bishan Dayal, the same day, and a Daily Diary Report (DDR) was filed on 22 June.
Laika was recovered exactly a month later on 20 July from a private individual.
However, a departmental inquiry followed suit.
The inquiry—while explicitly clearing Singh of responsibility for Laika’s escape—found him guilty of not informing his seniors fast enough. But he wasn’t the one directly guarding the animal; Constable Parmod was.
The escape happened during a wedding, hardly something Singh could have anticipated or prevented.
While Singh did inform Inspector Dayal the day after, the one day delay was deemed insufficiently prompt. Never mind that the DDR was registered within two days. The delay between the night of 19 and 20 June and the morning of 21 June was deemed insufficient promptness.
The punishment was harsh. Five annual increments were stopped with permanent effect.
Singh appealed the penalty. The appellate authority, inclining towards leniency, cut the punishment down to two increments from five. But the “permanent effect” remained. For a service animal that came back safely, for a lapse measured in hours, Singh would pay for the rest of his career.
Also Read: Why HC ruled in favour of appointing arbitrator to resolve IPL franchisee’s shareholders’ dispute
A quarter century in legal limbo
Singh did not stop there. He challenged the order through a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2005.
For the next two decades, the case wound its way through the system while Singh remained two increments poorer for life.
On 24 December, 2025, Justice Jagmohan Bansal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court finally heard the matter. By then, 25 years had passed since Laika’s adventure.
Justice Bansal’s reasoning was straightforward. The escape happened under circumstances beyond Singh’s control.
The person with direct custody, the kennel man, faced no action. Singh informed his seniors within a day, and the DDR followed. The animal returned, and no harm was done.
“There was a minor lapse on the part of the petitioner; however, the punishment awarded was not proportionate to alleged misconduct,” the judge observed citing precedence.
The court invoked the constitutional principle of proportionality, citing Supreme Court precedents like Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh. According to the principle, the punishment must fit the offence. Disproportionate penalties violate the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
“In the normal course matter ought to be remanded to authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment. However, in this particular case, this Court does not find it appropriate to remand the matter because a period of more than two decades has already passed away. The authorities have passed impugned orders mechanically and there are all possibilities that remand would multiply the litigation. Thus, to cut short the litigation and considering the alleged misconduct, punishment is modified from forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect to forfeiture of two increments with temporary effect,” Justice Bansal said in his order.
(Edited by Vidhi Bhutra)
Also read: Why HC registry refused to delete names of Akshay Kumar, PVR & INOX from Bata’s Jolly LLB 2 suit