IMPORTANT POINT
Order of dismissal of a Sub-Inspector of police on report that he was a terror in the area and it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry for reason that witnesses would not come forward freely to depose against him could not be said Authority was not justified to dispense with enquiry invoking Article 311(3) of Constitution of India.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 311(2) Proviso (b) & 311(3)-Respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, dismissed from service-Enquiry was dispensed with-Scope of judicial scrutiny of reasons given for dispensing with enquiry-Superintendent of Police had reported that respondent was a terror in the area and in his very presence respondent intimidated complainant-Authority could not be said not justified to hold that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against respondent - Judgment of Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
Held : Clause (3) of Article 311, it may be noticed, declares that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2), the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such person shall be final on that question. The Tribunal has not referred to clause (3) at all in its order. We are not suggesting that because of clause (3), the court or the Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor are we suggesting that in every case the court should blindly accept the recital in terms of the said proviso contained in the order of dismissal. Be that as it may, without going into the question of extent and scope of judicial review in such a matter, we may look to the facts of this case. The Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, has reported that the respondent "is a terror in the area" and, more important, in his very presence, the respondent "intimidated the complainant Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly terrified of this Sub Inspector". It is also reported that the other persons who were arrested with Ranjit Singh, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, has been dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Senior Superintendent of Police dispensed with the enquiry invoking proviso (b) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and made the order of dismissal on 5th July, 1991. An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 30th September, 1991 whereupon the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal found, following its earlier order dated June 2, 1995 in O.A. No. 232/Ch/94 (Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration), that the ground upon which the Senior Superintendent has dispensed with the enquiry is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal and the appellate order and directed the administration to reinstate the respondent with all attendant benefits.

3. The order of dismissal reads as follows:

"ORDER

Whereas SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/1 was holding the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

It was brought to my notice that he indulged in gross misuse of official power and attempted to extort money from an innocent victim after illegally detaining and torturing him in the Police Station, which amounts to grave misconduct on the part of a Police Officer.

Shri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh, has also conducted an enquiry against him for his aforesaid nefarious activities and misdeeds and has submitted a report which proves the misconduct of SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/1.

From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that he has indulged in gross misuse of official power.

And further, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, am satisfied under sub clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/1 for the reasons that the witnesses cannot come forward freely to depose against him in a regular departmental enquiry.

Now, therefore, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, appointing authority of SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/1, hereby dismiss him from Government service with immediate effect.

Sd/-

Senior Superintendent of Police

UT, Chandigarh

SI Mohinder Singh, No. CHG/1,

PS North, Chandigarh".

4. The order of dismissal refers to and is based upon the report of Sri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the main features of the said Report. The Report says that the respondent arrested one Ranjit Singh from his house at about 11.45 p.m. on the night intervening 3rd/4th July, 1991 along with two friends of Ranjit Singh who happened to be in his house at that time, brought Ranjit Singh to the police station and tortured him mercilessly on the plea that he was harbouring terrorists. It is reported that the respondent was in a drunken condition at that time and that he was repeatedly asking Ranjit Singh about the whereabouts of a particular terrorist. The respondent also told Ranjit Singh that he was torturing him at the instance of his superior officers. He demanded a sum of Rupees sixty thousand from Ranjit Singh as a condition for releasing him. Ultimately, a sum of Rupees twenty thousand was paid to the respondent whereafter Ranjit Singh was released. The Report submits that the ground on which Ranjit Singh was arrested and tortured was wholly baseless and that it was done with a view to extort money from hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document