Justice for a ‘Paw-some’ Blunder: After 25 Years, Court Leashes Harsh Punishment Over Missing Police Dog
After 25 years, High Court hits back at disproportionate punishment over runaway police dog Laika – justice finally fetched!
In a tale that sounds like a script from a quirky cop comedy—but with real stakes—a Haryana police officer has finally sniffed out justice after a quarter-century battle over a runaway service dog. On December 24, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of Head Constable Jagmal Singh, dialing back a punishing departmental penalty that stemmed from a 2000 incident involving a mischievous bitch named Laika. Talk about a long walk to redemption!
Picture this: It’s the summer of 2000, and Singh is overseeing the Dog Squad in Haryana’s CID Unit. In the dead of night on June 19-20, Laika—a trained service animal—slips her leash during a neighborhood wedding celebration and vanishes into the ether. The dog was under the direct watch of Constable Parmod Kumar, the kennel man, who alerted Singh the next morning. Singh sprang into action, searching high and low before reporting it up the chain to Inspector Bishan Dayal. A Daily Diary Report (DDR) was logged on June 22, and miraculously, Laika was recovered a month later from a private citizen on July 20.
No harm, no foul, right? Wrong. The department launched an inquiry, clearing Singh of any blame for the actual loss but nailing him for a “minor lapse”: not informing his superiors immediately. The disciplinary hammer fell hard—stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect. Singh appealed, and it was softened to two increments, but he wasn’t done fighting. Enter the High Court, where he petitioned to scrap the orders from 2001, 2002, and beyond, arguing the punishment was wildly disproportionate to what amounted to a one-day delay in reporting.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, in a reasoned oral judgment, agreed. Drawing on Supreme Court precedents like Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1983), the court emphasized the principle of proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution. “Any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14,” the judgment echoed, citing how Indian courts have long scrutinized excessive restrictions on rights. Here, the court noted, no action was taken against the actual custodian (Kumar), the dog was safely recovered, and Singh had informed superiors by June 21—with the DDR following suit. The lapse? Minor at best.
Normally, such cases get kicked back to authorities for a rethink. But with over two decades elapsed and fears of endless litigation, Justice Bansal took the reins: He modified the penalty to forfeiture of two increments with temporary effect only. The state must cough up arrears within six months, or face 7.5% annual interest. “To cut short the litigation,” the court quipped, wrapping up a saga that’s older than some millennials.
This ruling isn’t just a win for Singh—it’s a reminder that justice, like a loyal dog, eventually comes home. In an era of bureaucratic overreach, it underscores how disproportionate punishments can bite back, violating equality under the law. For Haryana’s finest, it’s a tail-wagging tale of persistence paying off.
