Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Baljit Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 12366 of 2021 (O&M) with CWP No. 25366 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Article 311 - Dismissal from Service - NDPS Act, 1985, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 120-B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, NDPS Act 1985, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 120-B IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and emphasized the requirement for recording reasons in writing as to why it is not reasonably practical to hold a departmental inquiry before dismissing an employee. The court highlighted that mere registration of a FIR is not a sufficient ground to dispense with holding a regular inquiry, and adequate reasons must be given in the order of dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed from service based on a FIR under NDPS Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. The dismissal was made by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, dispensing with the normal procedure of holding a departmental inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal orders did not contain adequate reasons as to why it was not reasonably practical to hold a departmental inquiry before dismissing the petitioners. It emphasized that mere registration of a FIR is not sufficient ground to dispense with holding a regular inquiry.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the petitioners from service by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and dispensing with regular departmental inquiry, based on the FIRs under NDPS Act and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal orders lacked adequate reasons for dispensing with a departmental inquiry and emphasized the requirement for recording reasons in writing as to why it is not reasonably practical to hold such an inquiry before dismissing an employee.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned dismissal orders were set aside, leaving it open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. - By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of above titled two writ petitions since a common question of law is involved and the petitioners are seeking to challenge the order of dismissal by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and dispensing with regular departmental inquiry. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No 12366 of 2021.
2. In the writ petition referred to above, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash order dated 30.4.2021 by which the petitioner stands dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector on 09.07.1996 and promoted as Sub Inspector on 29.5.2006 with a further promotion as Inspector on 11.4.2012. It is averred that the petitioner worked with utmost honesty and satisfaction and has a meritorious service record. On account of his commendable work, he had been granted out of turn promotions. However, a FIR No. 65 dated 12.4.2021 under Sections 21, 29 and 59 of the NDPS Act 1985 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, read with Section 120-B IPC came to be registered at Police Station Tarn Taran against the petitioner. In the FIR dated 12.4.2021, which was registered by one SI Jatinder Singh, it was alleged that a secret informer gave him information that on 31.03.2021, the petitioner along with Head Constable Davinder Singh caught Malkeet Singh @ Patla and Bao Singh with 1 Kg of heroin in the city Tarn Taran.
The officials were in a white Brezza car when they apprehended Malkeet Singh with heroin. Thereafter, in connivance with one Jassa Singh, the petitioner along with Head Constable Davinder Singh released Malkeet Singh @ Patla and Bao Singh Singh upon receiving a bribe of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
The heroin was also taken away. On the registration of the FIR, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur- respondent No. 3 dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, holding that there is no need to hold a departmental inquiry as he has committed a grave misconduct of accepting the bribe and retaining heroin, which act has maligned the police force.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved against the dismissal order on invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court by contending that the petitioner was not on patrolling duty on the date of the alleged incident i.e. on 31.03.2021. He was in fact on duty at Police Lines.
5. Mr. Patwalia learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that registration of the FIR against the petitioner has been made on a statement of a secret informant, which was given after a period of two weeks of the alleged incident in question. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by this Court in Criminal Misc. M No. 22360 of 2021 titled as 'Baljit Singh Vs The State of Punjab on 7.6.2021. It is submitted that the order of dismissal does not contain any cogent reason for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. It is pointed out that the petitioner herein was due for promotion and the registration of the FIR on the statement of an unknown person is only to put a hurdle to his promotion which was due.
Mr. Patwalia relies upon judgments rendered in CWP No. 14712 of 2017 titled Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 25.4.2022, CWP No. 21419 of 2020 titled Bikramjit and another Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 23.2.2022, CWP 13847 of 1995 titled Constable Harinder Kumar Versus State of Punjab and another decided on 24.10.2013, CWP No. 890 of 2011 titled Pammi Ram Versus state of Punjab and others decided on 4.2.2013 and CWP No. 10423 of 2020 titl
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere registration of a FIR is not a sufficient ground to dispense with holding a regular inquiry before dismissing an employee, and adequate r....
Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insuf....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and without proper justification viola....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that holding an inquiry is a rule while dispensing with it is an exception, and the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be sufficient and ....
The authority must provide objective justifications for the impracticability of holding an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and the dismissal of a regular member of the force is a drastic measure that....
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
