The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a regular departmental enquiry before imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of a public servant, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. Labh Singh, Ex Head Constable, who filed the instant petition, died during the pendency thereof and his widow Smt. Surinder Kaur, being his legal representative, was brought on record.

2. Labh Singh (now deceased) joined as Constable in the Police force on 25.8.1977, at Sangrur. He was later on transferred to Ludhiana. He passed the Lower School Course in 1983. His name was brought on list C. He was promoted, as Head Constable on 19.6.1986, and he continued to be so, upto the date of termination of his services. He was falsely implicated, in a case, bearing FIR No. 84 dated 31.3.1990, under Sections 304/506/201/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana. He was tried by the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and was acquitted vide judgment dated 4.1.1991 (Annexure P-4). After the registration of the aforesaid case, an order dated 3.4.1990 was passed, dismissing him from service, for his alleged misconduct relating to some other incident, by resorting to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, by respondent No. 3. An appeal was preferred against the order of dismissal dated 3.4.1990 (Annexure P-1), but the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.6.1991 (Annexure P-2), without any rhym or reason. Labh Singh filed a revision petition, before respondent No. 1, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 4.12.1991 (Annexure P-3). It was stated that instead of conducting an enquiry, as per the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules, respondent No. 3, adopted a short-cut method, and dismissed Labh Singh from service. It was further stated that there was no material, on record, on the basis whereof, the competent Authority, could come to the conclusion, that it was reasonably impracticable to hold a regular enquiry. Ultimately, Labh Singh (now deceased), filed the instant petition, for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the orders Annexure P-1 to P-3, being illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice, and statutory Rules. Prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, including pay etc., by quashing the orders, aforesaid, was also made.

3. In the written statement, filed by the respondents, the factum of enrolment of Labh Singh as Constable, in the Police Department; his passing of Lower School Course; placing his name in list C w.e.f. 1.9.1983, and his promotion as Head Constable w.e.f. 18.9.1986, was admitted. However, it was stated that the petitioner was discharged from service, on 13.5.1979 A.N., by the Senior Superintendent of Police, as he was found unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer. He was, however, reinstated in service, in compliance with the order of Inspector General of Police dated 15.4.1980, and was transferred from District Sangrur to District Ludhiana. It was admitted that a criminal case, referred to hereinbefore, was registered against the petitioner. It was denied that it was a false case. It was admitted that he was acquitted in that criminal case, by the Court of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 4.1.1991. It was stated that Labh Singh was dismissed from service, on the basis of the charge, that he was misusing his official position by extorting money, from truck and tempo operators, plying on Ludhiana-Sangrur-Delhi road, which is National Highway, though, he was not supposed to check the same. Thus, he was unnecessarily harassing the public and defaming the name of the Police force. It was further stated that, in these circumstances, it was reasonably impracticable to hold a regular departmental enquiry, as it was very difficult, to find out the whereabouts of the Truck/tempo operators of other States, and, at the same time, even if, any of them, was traced, he was not likely to depose against him due to fear. The factum of dismissal of appeal, as also the revision,