The decision to dispense with a departmental inquiry must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by material. The fear of witnesses not coming forward must be substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through this judgment, CWP No.18508 and 18417 of 2020 filed against a common order passed by the competent authority dismissing the writ petitioners from service in exercise of powers under Rule 16.1 read with Section 7, The Police Act, 1861 and Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India has been assailed.

2. In CWP No.18508 of 2020, Paramjit Singh is the petitioner whereas Resham Singh has filed CWP No.18417 of 2020. Paramjit Singh at the relevant time was working as Constable whereas Resham Singh was working as Head Constable (Driver). As per the case of the respondent-State, as many as four police officials were deputed to take two criminals namely Harpreet Singh son of Swaran Singh and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Gurwinder Singh from Central Jail, Amritsar, to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for appearance. They took the accused persons from Central Jail in a government vehicle but abandoned the same on the way with Head Constable Resham Singh and took the accused persons in a private vehicle. After producing them before the Court, instead of straightway bringing them back to Central Jail, Amritsar, they went to a rented accommodation of accused Harpreet Singh where his wife was already present and thereafter both the accused were allowed to flee away. It is also alleged that when the accused were taken out of the prison, Harpreet Singh was allowed to talk to his wife Harjit Kaur multiple times on the mobile phone of Constable Sukhwinder Singh. It was noticed that both the accused are involved in approximately one dozen criminal cases each.

3. The competent authority vide order dated 27.06.2019 dispensed the service of the petitioner on the ground that it would not be correct to hold departmental inquiry against these officials because due to their fear, none is likely to come forward to depose in the departmental inquiry.

4. Appeal against the order passed by the competent authority has also been dismissed resulting in filing of these two writ petitions. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply has been filed. It has been disclosed that against Paramjit Singh various orders of punishment have been passed. It has further been stated that the competent authority recorded its satisfaction in the order itself that it will not be practicable to hold inquiry.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper book. It may be noted here that after the judgment was reserved, the original record was requisitioned and examined.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon judgment passed in Ex. Constable Chote Lal vs. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 196 contends that the decision of the competent authority to dispense with the inquiry was not appropriate. The satisfaction recorded by the officer is neither reasonable nor practicable. The reason assigned in the order while dispensing with the requirement of regular inquiry that no one would depose against the petitioner has no basis.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners being members of the disciplinary force have committed a heinous crime by allowing the hardcore criminals to escape. Hence, she appeals for upholding the order.

8. This Court has considered the submissions. Article 311 of the Constitution of India confers a constitutional protection upon a delinquent which cannot be dispensed with, easily and arbitrarily merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry. On careful reading of proviso (b) to Article 311(2), it is apparent that the competent authority is required to be satisfied that for some reasons to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. For this purpose, following three ingredients are necessary:-

1. The delinquency should be such which would call for such punishment.

2. The satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary.

3. The reasons have to be recorded in writin