The invocation of Article 311(2)(b) for dismissal without a departmental inquiry is invalid if a preliminary inquiry was possible.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present OA, the applicant has challenged the impugned penalty order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure A/2), vide which the respondents have dismissed the applicant by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and also the impugned appellate order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure A/1), vide which the applicant’s appeal against the order of punishment has been rejected.

2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs in the present OA:-

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 – The Appellate Order (Annexure A/1) and 06.02.2024 – The Penalty Order (Annexure A/2) and

(b) Direct the respondents to forthwith reinstate the applicant in service.

(c) accord all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages.

(d) Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the applicant.

(e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant.”

3. Disputing the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed the counter reply on 06.09.2024 and they have prayed for dismissal of OA with cost against the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, by referring to the assertions made in the OA, submits that the applicant while working as Head Constable was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 11 under dated 18.01.2024 u/s 384/120-B IPC with P.S. Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Along with the applicant, another police personnel namely, Mr. Manoj Jakhar, Head Constable was also involved in the said case FIR.

5. In view of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the said Mr. Manoj Jakhar, preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondents and in the light of the report of the said preliminary inquiry, the applicant as well as the said Mr. Manoj Jakhar, both were dismissed by the respondents vide a common order dated 06.02.2024. They preferred appeal(s) and the same were rejected by the respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal and also by the appellate order, the aforesaid Mr Manoj, co- accused had approached this Tribunal, by way of OA No. 1696/2024. The OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 19.09.2024 passed by a coordinate bench consisting one of us [Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)].

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record a copy of the order/judgment in case of Manoj Jhakar vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.. She further submits that the said case has attained finality, in view of the fact that the respondents have implemented the same by reinstating the applicant vide order dated 24.12.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the aforesaid Mr. Manoj Jhakar and the present applicant, both have been dismissed vide a common order and the reasons for their dismissal have also been common and when the OA of the said Mr. Manoj Jhakar, co-accused has already been allowed by the Tribunal vide Order/judgement dated 19.09.2024, the present OA may also be allowed in the similar terms.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid fact. He has categorically submitted that claim of the applicant is squarely covered by the Order/judgment dated 19.09.2024 in Manoj Jhakar (supra).

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to reproduce the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Jhakar (supra), as herein below:-

“The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act., 1985, seeking the following relief(s) under para 8 of the OA:-

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned