Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Mukteshwar Nath – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 22981 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Punjab.
The main legal point established is the requirement for orders to be speaking and to consider all relevant grounds and evidence, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Inquiry - Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 - 10.7.2013 (Annexure P-38), 13.3.1992, 17.1.1994, 18.1.1994, 19.1.1994, 18.6.1994, 21.6.1994 - The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 10.7.2013 passed by respondent No.2, directing reconsideration of the case of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dismissing his revision petition against departmental inquiry findings and subsequent punishment of forfeiture of service benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were non-speaking and contrary to the facts presented. It allowed the petition and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's case by the respondent within two months.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, non-consideration of detailed grounds in the revision petition, and failure to take into account relevant affidavits and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to consider the grounds raised in the revision petition and relevant evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 10.7.2013 was set aside, with directions for reconsideration of the petitioner's case by the respondent within two months.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
1. The present writ 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 10.7.2013 (Annexure P-38) passed by respondent No. 2, vide which, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against orders dated 17.1.1994 (Annexure P-24), 18.1.1994 (Annexure P- 25), 19.1.1994 (Annexure P-26), 18.6.1994 (Annexure P-27) and 21.6.1994 (Annexure P-28) has been dismissed. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of order dated 13.3.1992, whereby, the petitioner has been held guilty for not writing the case diary in five cases (Annnexures P-19 to P-23) and was imposed punishment of forfeiture of his approved service of one year each in five cases and further to grant all service benefits of five years forfeited by respondent No.4 vide aforesaid order along with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable and thereafter was promoted as ASI and SI. During formal inspection of Police Station City Kotkapura conducted by DSP (D), Faridkot, it was found that the petitioner was entrusted work with some of the FIRs under different sections. The allegation against him is that he did not record any case diary and had even not prepared the challan in those FIR cases. The departmental inquiry was marked against the petitioner and in the inquiry, he was held guilty of the charges framed against him. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to him for punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service with cumulative effect in each of the FIR cases.
3. Reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioner but the same was not found satisfactory and he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service with cumulative effect in all the five cases.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed five separate appeals before DIG, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, which were dismissed by separate orders. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed CWP No. 9799 of 2010 for quashing of order dated 13.3.1992, vide which, the petitioner was held guilty for not writing the case diary in five cases and was imposed punishment of forfeiture of his approved service of one year each in all five cases. The aforesaid petition was disposed of to avail alternative remedy of revision before the higher authority. It was also held that in case there is any particular period of limitation for filing revision, the period spend in availing the remedy was excluded. A period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order was given to file the revision petition. Thereafter he filed revision petition by raising various grounds like impugned order was totally non-speaking and was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. His service record was meritorious as no adverse remarks were mentioned in the ACRs and his work was also appreciated from time to time but even then the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.7.2013 (Annexure P-38).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed in the revision petition is contrary to the principles of natural justice as the detailed reply filed by the petitioner has not been considered and no finding whatsoever has been recorded while dismissing the revision petition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was always praised for his work by earlier officers as is clear from his ACRs of the last many years. The petitioner remained posted in the Election Cell for two months on oral orders and this fact has been affirmed by the statement of HC Surjit Singh. Mr. Sawaran Singh, the then SSP Faridkot has also categorically deposed that in the year 1991, he remained posted as In-charge District Police, Faridkot and in the month of April, 1991, during mid term elections of the Punjab State As
