Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Gulab Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.17451 of 2015(O&M)
Decided On : 10-01-2023
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Actions
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.420, S.473, S.120(b), S.381, S.307, S.411
PUNJAB POLICE RULES: R.16.2(1), R.16.2
Headnote
(B) Standards of misconduct for police officers - Misconduct defined under Rule 16.2 - Not all actions warrant dismissal; lesser misconduct should receive appropriate punishment. (Paras 9, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service after being implicated in a case involving immoral trafficking, based solely on association with an accused who had multiple pending cases, while other officials were exonerated.
Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal to be without substantial evidence, particularly because the primary witness was not available for cross-examination and the nature of alleged misconduct did not warrant such severe punishment.
Issues: The main legal questions concerned the justification for dismissal based on unproven allegations and the lack of proper evidentiary support during the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceeding insufficiently substantiated the charges against the petitioner due to the absence of crucial evidence, namely the examination of the primary witness, leading to the conclusion that dismissal was not justified.
Result: Writ petition allowed; dismissal set aside and case remanded for reconsideration of sanctions against the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of dismissal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the departmental inquiry and allegations (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding lack of opportunity to cross-examine key witness (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. discussion on the evidence and relevance of alleged misconduct (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's assessment of misconduct and procedural fairness (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision to remand case for fresh consideration (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
The petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet dated 19.08.2011, order of dismissal dated 18.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.4, order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the respondent No.3, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 after remand by the respondent No.1, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner being not maintainable along with all consequential proceedings. The petitioner seeks issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits of service, seniority, pay and salary along with full back wages with interest and any other appropriate order, which this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Haryana Police on 05.09.1977. In due course, he was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. He had completed more than 35 years of good service including awarding of recommendation certificates and medals having participated in Indian Police (Sports Team), wherein he was declared as best athlete in Ambala Range on seven occasions. He was honoured for his performance in anti-terrorist squad and solving typical cases. The petitioner was never awarded with any major punishment except the one in question. On 17.08.2011, the then Station House Office of the Police Station, Thanesar made a report to the respondent No.4 in respect of investigation of FIR No.434 dated 10.08.2011 under IMMORAL TRAFFICKING ACT against one Nisha Talwar alleging that 22 police officials were in touch with the aforesaid Nisha Talwar. The name of the petitioner was also mentioned therein. Nisha Talwar @ Manju was running a Brothel. Number of cases were registered against her which were pending in different Courts. Nisha Talwar was caught on the basis of secret information for running a Brothel in her residence along with her friends and girls. FIR No.434 was registered on 10.08.2011 under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the IMMORAL TRAFFICKING ACT and Sections 4 20, 473, 120-B IPC at Police Station Thanesar.
3. During investigation, names of 22 police officials were noticed, who were having contacts with Nisha Talwar. In view of aforesaid fact, respondent No.4 had ordered initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner and appointed Enquiry Officer vide order dated 19.08.2011 for the alleged gross misconduct involving immoral turpitude. Therefore, Mr. Bhupinder Singh, H.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Kurukshetra was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer issued summary of allegations on 19.08.2011. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had maintained a relation with Nisha Talwar and being a member of disciplined force, has committed disgraceful act, thereby tarnishing the image of police department and the same was against the police rules. The departmental enquiry was initiated on the order of the respondent No.4. The petitioner filed reply to the allegations, explaining his position. In the departmental enquiry, Constable Krishan Kumar was examined as PW-1, Constable Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-2, MHC Shamsher Singh was examined as PW-3 and Inspector Dayal Singh was examined as PW-4.
4. Enquiry Officer gave his enquiry report after considering the material o
