Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Suresh Chand - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 7473 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-03-2022
de novo inquiry - Departmental Inquiry - Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules - [16.28] - The court discussed the impugned order for de novo inquiry, the power of the respondent-authority to review the order, and the interpretation of Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules. The court highlighted that the power to review the order falls under Rule 16.28, and a de novo inquiry could not have been ordered. The court referred to the language of the provision, previous case law, and the absence of statutory rule for ordering a fresh inquiry against a public servant who has been exonerated in the first inquiry. The court concluded that the impugned order directing initiation of de novo inquiry is against the settled principles of law and is not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, filed a writ petition for quashing an order for de novo inquiry, a charge sheet, and a notice asking the petitioner to join the inquiry. The petitioner had already been awarded punishment in a previous inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order for de novo inquiry, charge sheet, and notice were quashed as they were against the settled principles of law and not sustainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether a fresh inquiry could have been ordered into the complaint made against the petitioner, in which a detailed inquiry had already been held and the complaint was found to be false; and whether the respondents had the jurisdiction to review the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order directing initiation of de novo inquiry in the complaint, pursuant to which the petitioner had already been awarded the punishment, was against the settled principles of law and not sustainable. The court referred to Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, previous case law, and the absence of statutory rule for ordering a fresh inquiry against a public servant who has been exonerated in the first inquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order for de novo inquiry, charge sheet, and notice were quashed.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant 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 21.1.2020 as passed by respondent No.3 ordering for de novo inquiry for the third time in the complaint in which the petitioner has already been awarded the punishment and quashing of the charge sheet dated 18.2.2020 as also quashing the notice dated 16.5.2020 whereby the petitioner has been asked to join the inquiry.
2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner joined the respondent department on 2.12.1988 as Constable and stood promoted to the post of Inspector as on 29.3.2018. One FIR No. 103 dated 11.2.2017 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and Sections 7/8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram, against the accused-Mohan Lal and Manish Bhardwaj. An SIT was constituted and the investigation was launched under the supervision of Anil Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Gurugram. In fact, the said FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information in which inquiry was conducted by Shri Sivash Kaviraj, IPS against Manish Bhardwaj son of Shri Uma Shankar Bhardwaj of Gurgaon, Mohan Lal son of Shri Puran Chand, Taras Pal, Ms. Hyoti Sharma, Shri Mahinder Singh etc. regarding operation of a gang who were involved in preparation of bogus/duplicate and fictitious documents regarding registration of illegal weapons brought into the State of Haryana. Manish Bhardwaj was arrested on 24.2.2017 along with his car from Mohali, Chandigarh and during the interrogation seven country made and imported pistol along with 8,762 live cartridges of different types were recovered. Apart from that, a number of other illegal forged registration certificates of arms and other forged/duplicate stamps of various states were recovered.
3. The petitioner herein was one of the eight members of SIT that was constituted. The main accused Manish Bhardwaj made a complaint against the petitioner and others regarding torture inflicted upon him and demand of bribe to the Commissioner of Police Gurugram, which was registered as 2257/CP/2018 dated 16.2.2018. The said complaint was also sent to the DGP, Haryana as well as to the Chief Minister Office and was registered as Complaint No. 2256/CP/2018/DGP dated 21.2.2018 and CMOFF/N/2018/015995 dated 12.2.2018. The petitioner submitted his reply to the complaint and inquiry was conducted by associating the petitioner and all other persons involved. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Gurugram vide order dated 7.4.2018 found that the allegations as leveled in the complaint by Manish Bhardwaj were false, but at the same time the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner has used un parliamentary language against senior police officials in one of the audio recordings and on this basis it was recommended that departmental inquiry be carried out against the petitioner for using un-parliamentary language. On the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, a departmental inquiry was initiated on the allegations that the petitioner had used un- parliamentary language in the audio recording. Regular inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given punishment of 'censure' by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak by order dated 29.4.2019.
4. During the time, the petitioner was posted at Gurugram, the Commissioner of Police Gurugram Shri Mohd. Akil received a communication from the office of the DGP, Haryana, in which order dated No. 2680/CR-3 dated 27.11.2019 was passed that under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana, stating that the order dated 29.4.2019 be reviewed in which the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of censure. On receipt of the said communication, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.1.2020 and
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a de novo inquiry could not have been ordered in the absence of statutory rule for ordering a fresh inquiry against a public servant who has b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reviewing authority does not have the right to order a De-novo departmental enquiry as per Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules and established legal ....
A second enquiry on the same charges is impermissible under service jurisprudence, and failure to provide an opportunity for representation violates natural justice principles.
The disciplinary authority's power to order a de novo inquiry and frame additional charges must be in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) ....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings focuses on the fairness of the process rather than the correctness of the outcome, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedure for conducting an enquiry and the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary p....
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
