Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Warder Ram Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & ors. - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 3547 of 2015
Decided On : 22-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Mr. Gaurav Rana
For the State : Mr. T.N. Sarup
The necessity of recording reasons for dispensing with an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and the requirement of extraordinary circumstances to invoke the provision.
Headnote:
Article 311(2)(b) - Service Termination - 15/18/61/85 of NDPS Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a warder, was dismissed from service without an inquiry after being alleged to have supplied narcotics to jail inmates. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India were not complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal without conducting an inquiry and without recording reasons for not doing so was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, compliance with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal without recording reasons for not conducting an inquiry was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It emphasized the necessity of recording reasons for dispensing with an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and the requirement of extraordinary circumstances to invoke the provision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of dismissal, granting the respondents the option to hold a regular inquiry against the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with without holding an enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post of Warder and to grant him all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Warder on 12.09.1987 and posted at Sangrur Jail. He continued to work there till 1993. Thereafter, he was transferred to Open Jail, Nabha. He continued there upto the year 1999 and thereafter again he was transferred to Security Jail, Nabha. He continued there till the year 2004 and then was transferred to the Jail at Malerkotla where he continued to perform his duties till the year 2011. He remained posted in New District Jail Nabha on deputation.
3. On the night of 4th September, 2014, a raid was conducted in the jail premises, during which, some narcotic substance was alleged to have been recovered from the pocket of trousers of the petitioner subsequent whereupon a case bearing FIR No.93 dated 5.9.2014 was registered under Sections 15/18/61/85 of the NDPS Act alleging therein that he was found to be involved in supplying narcotics to the jail inmates, thereby violated the provisions of para Nos.176, 177 and 206 of the Punjab Jail Manual. The petitioner was suspended on lodging of the above-said FIR and ultimately dismissed from service as per the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India without conducting an enquiry by virtue of order dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without conducting any regular enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The provisions of Section 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India have been attracted but no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for not conducting enquiry. It has not been mentioned in the impugned order as to how it was not practicable to conduct a regular enquiry. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was having 27 years of service and neither a single complaint was there against him nor any punishment was awarded to him at any point of time. Learned counsel also submits that provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India have not been complied with whereas said power can be exercised only under the circumstances when it is not practicably possible to conduct an enquiry. Although, no reasons are necessary to be recorded but it is to be made out as to how the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) are attracted. In the end, learned counsel submits that the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed being violative of principles of natural justice and having been passed without conducting any regular enquiry or without recording any finding while attracting the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgments passed in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 (3) SCC 398, Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (11) SCC 525, Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 1991 (1) SCC 362, Smt. Surinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (1) SCT 396 and Ex. Constable Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (2) SCT 137.
6. In response to notice of motion, reply has been filed which is on record.
7. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was found to be involved in a serious offence of NDPS and no regular enquiry was required to be conducted. It was found that
