Back
1995 Supreme(All) 1119
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.K.Mukherjee
BALVEER SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 10 November 1995
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 37969 of 1992
V.B.SINGH,
The authority's satisfaction under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and similar provisions must be fortified by independent material, and the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot be taken lightly or arbitrarily.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311(2)(B) - U. P. POLICE OFFICERS OF THE SUBORDINATE RANKS (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1991, RULE 8(2)(B) - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - DISPENSATION WITH DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - SATISFACTION OF AUTHORITY - MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, challenged his dismissal from service under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, arguing that the authority did not disclose any material to support its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authority's satisfaction under Rule 8(2)(b) must be fortified by independent material and that the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot be rested solely on the ipso dixit of the concerned authority.
Issues: Whether the authority's satisfaction under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, must be fortified by independent material.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, which held that the authority's satisfaction under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and similar provisions must be supported by material and that the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot be taken lightly or arbitrarily.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of dismissal, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement in service.
Balveer Singh, the present writ petitioner moved this writ petition challenging the appellate order, dated 3-9-1992 affirm ing the order of termination dated 24-12-1991 set out at Annexures IV and I respectively to the petition.
2. The said order of termination was passed against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 in exercise of powers under the provisions of Para 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as rules, 1991 ). The said para 8 of the Rules, 1991 reads as follows :
"8. Dismissal and removal.- (I) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the ap pointing authority.
(2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as con templated by these rules :
Provided that this rule shall not apply-
(a) where a 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
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a per son or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that- authority in writing, it is not reason ably practicable to hold such enquiry ; or
(c) where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry".
3. It appears from the aforesaid para 8 (2) (b) of the rules that the au thority has power to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank if he is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by the said authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry.
4. This provision is parameter to the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution whereby such dispensation of enquiry was provided when it is not practicable to hold enquiry and Governor or the President of India is of the opinion to that effect. In the case of B. K. Sardari Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1547, it was, inter alia, held that such an enquiry may be held by the President or the Governor of the State-as the case may be but in the case of Shamsher v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 it has been held that the satisfaction could be arrived at by the Minister and Governor should be entitled to pass the order of ex parte, the order for satisfaction is not transferr ed and earlier view expressed in B. K. Sardari Lal, (supra) has been reversed to that extent. It will be relevant to point out at this stage that the lapse judgment of the Supreme Court reported in J as want Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 385 wherein the Bench consisting of Honble K. Jagannatha Shetty and Honble A. M. Ahmadi, JJ. , inter alia interpreted the dispensa tion with departmental enquiry-subjective satisfaction of concerned authority must be fortified by independent material. The observation of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh (supra) is as follows :
"it was incumbent on the respondents to disclose to the court the material in existence at the date of the passing of the impugned order in support of the subjective satisfaction recorded by respondent No. 3 in the impugned order. Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. "
Their Lordships in the said judgment of Jaswant Singh (supra) have also placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 where it was observed as follows :
"a disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary authority lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Depart ments case against the Government servant is weak and must fail. "
The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rest
