Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Baljinder Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 8612 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 13-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab

Dismissal from service without conducting a mandatory inquiry violates Articles 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.24 - Dismissal from service without inquiry - Petitioner dismissed without inquiry as mandated by Rule 16.24 and Article 311(2) - Inquiry is mandatory unless specific exceptions apply - Respondent failed to justify dispensing with inquiry. (Paras 1, 6, 9)

(B) Inquiry Procedure - The court emphasized that dismissal without inquiry is not permissible unless justified under Article 311(2) - The SSP's reasoning for dispensing with inquiry was found inadequate and mechanical. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service without inquiry after being accused of accepting illegal gratification during the investigation of FIRs against others. The dismissal was challenged on the grounds of procedural impropriety.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the dismissal was improper as it violated the mandatory inquiry requirement, and the order was set aside.

Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal without inquiry was justified and whether the SSP's reasoning met the legal standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the SSP's failure to conduct an inquiry was a violation of the procedural safeguards provided under the Constitution and the Punjab Police Rules.

Result: The dismissal order was set aside, allowing for a proper inquiry to be conducted.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby he was dismissed from service without holding inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 1934 Rules') read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Probationer Sub- Inspector on 20.05.2014. Two FIRs bearing No.102 and 103 dated 30.09.2017, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were registered against Sukhdev Singh @ Deba and Pargat Singh @ Pagga, at Police Station Harike, District Taran Tarn. The respondent found that during the course of investigation of aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner has accepted illegal gratification from the accused of the aforesaid FIRs. An FIR No. 108 dated 20.10.2017, under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 59 of the NDPS Act, 1985 came to be registered at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran against petitioner and HC Jatinder Singh. The petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2017 of SSP, Tarn Taran, however, co-accused HC Jatinder Singh vide order dated 12.10.2017 was put under suspension. The petitioner preferred an appeal before appellate authority which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2019 passed by Inspector General of Police, Boarder Range, Amritsar. He further unsuccessfully preferred appeal/representation before Director General of Police.

3. Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate submits that there was no occasion to dispense with mandatory inquiry contemplated by Article 311 of Constitution of India read with Rule 16.24 of the 1934 Rules. The respondents acting in a mechanical manner dispensed with inquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service. The co-accused was initially suspended and he has been re-instated.

4. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab submits that petitioner accepted illegal gratification from accused in aforementioned FIRs, thus, it was indispensable to dismiss him from service. It was not possible to conduct inquiry, thus, he was dismissed without conducting inquiry.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that petitioner was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. This is not first case where the jurisdictional SSP of State of Punjab has dispensed with inquiry as contemplated by 1934 Rules and Constitution of India. This Court has found that as soon as an FIR is registered against a police official, the jurisdictional SSP opts to dispense with the inquiry. He does not think it necessary to conduct inquiry which is mandatory. As per second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, inquiry may be dispensed with (i) where person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or (ii) where the competent authority finds that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry or (iii) where President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. For the ready reference, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"311(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document