Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Inspector Surjit Singh No.64/PR (Retd.) – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Punjab And Other – Respondents
CWP No.1294 Of 2024
Decided On : 02-02-2024
De-novo departmental enquiry - Interpretation of Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules - Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 - Rule 16.28
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired police officer, sought setting aside of an order for De-novo departmental enquiry. The petitioner was exonerated in a previous departmental enquiry, but a new enquiry was ordered almost 5 years later. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reviewing authority had no right to order a De-novo departmental enquiry, as per Rule 16.28 and established legal precedents. The court also held that the impugned order was barred by the doctrine of reasonable period of limitation.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules, authority to order De-novo departmental enquiry, and the application of the doctrine of reasonable period of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reviewing authority did not have the right to order a De-novo departmental enquiry as per Rule 16.28 and established legal precedents. The court also applied the doctrine of reasonable period of limitation to set aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by DIG, Faridkot.
JUDGMENT :
(Jagmohan Bansal, J.) :
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) whereby DIG, Faridkot Range, Faridkot (Punjab) has ordered to conduct De-novo departmental enquiry.
2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police on 04.02.1990 as Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector on 12.10.2001. He got further promotion of Inspector w.e.f 01.01.2010. The service of the petitioner was recognized by 20 Commendation Certificates as well as cash award. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 05.12.2019. The petitioner in November’ 2017 joined as SHO, Police Station City South Moga. An FIR No.181 dated 10.09.2017 under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 was registered at Police Station City South, Moga. Accused in the aforesaid FIR came to be released on regular bail on account of non filing of challan within prescribed period. SSP, Moga on account of non filing of challan which resulted into release of accused in terms of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C, initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. A complete procedure of departmental enquiry was followed and petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by SSP, Moga. The respondent by impugned order dated 16.08.2023 has ordered to conduct De-novo departmental enquiry. The said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred by Section 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’).
3. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has no authority to conduct De-novo departmental enquiry because Rule 16.28 does not permit re-enquiry. The petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 26.09.2018 and impugned order has been passed on 16.08.2023. The petitioner retired on 05.12.2019, thus, impugned order has been passed almost after 5 years from the date of order exonerating the petitioner and 4 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. As per Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, departmental proceedings cannot be initiated after 4 years from the date of alleged incident, if an employee has already retired.
4. Learned State counsel submits that it is not a case of fresh enquiry whereas it is a case of De-novo departmental enquiry, thus, protection of Rule 2.2 is not available to the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed by DIG who is superior to Disciplinary Authority and as per Rule 16.28, DIG is competent to review order of SSP and direct for De-novo departmental enquiry.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and waives service.
7. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
8. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsels have perused the record.
9. The conceded position emerging from record is that the petitioner joined Police Force in 1990 and he joined Police Station, Moga as SHO in November’ 2017. An FIR No.181 dated 10.09.2017 under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 was pending against an accused. The said accused was extended concession of regular bail on account of non-filing of challan within period prescribed under Section 36-A of NDPS Act, 1985. Jurisdictional SSP initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner alleging that accused has been released on bail on account of dereliction of duty on part of the petitioner. The departmental enquiry culminated in exoneration of the petitioner. The order of exoneration was passed on 26.09.2018 and petitioner retired on 05.12.2019. The respondent has passed impugned order on 16.08.2023. The said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 16.28 of 1934 Rules. The reviewing authority has directed to conduct Denovo departmental enquiry.
10. The entire dispute is centered around the interpretation o
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....
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 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.
Police Standing Order, which is a special rule, which deals with the power of the authorities to postpone the decision on the departmental inquiry till pronouncement of judgment in the criminal case,....
Disciplinary Authority cannot order de-novo inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules upon dissatisfaction with Inquiry Officer's report; must proceed per Rule 15 by providing disagreement reasons or directing f....
The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rig....
The court ruled that a de-novo enquiry cannot be initiated based on a previously quashed charge-sheet, necessitating a fresh charge-sheet for any new proceedings.
The respondent authorities had the discretion to either take fresh enquiry or reinstate the petitioner. The decision to initiate de novo enquiry by reinstating the petitioner was valid and warranted ....
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
