Dismissal without enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution violates procedural fairness; allegations unrelated to employment cannot justify termination.

ORDER

By way of this petition challenge is made to order Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and further challenge is made to appellate order Annexure P-5 dated 3-5-2023 whereby the appeal against the dismissal order has been rejected by confirming the penalty order.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working as Constable in MP Police Force and he was falsely implicated in a case under section 376 IPC, at instance of a member of public on the grounds that under pretext of marriage, the petitioner had sexual relations with the said lady which amounts to offence of rape. An FIR was registered against the petitioner on 23-11-2022 and as soon as the information of registration of FIR against the petitioner reached the authorities, then an order of termination of services was passed vide Annexure P-1 21.12.2022 without conducting any enquiry and exercising powers under article 311 (2) of Constitution of Indi, enquiry was dispensed with.

3. It is further contended that later on the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case wide judgment dated 24-04-2023 and despite that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal.

4. It is contended that the respondents could not have taken action against the allegation against the petitioner which was as member of public in his private and personal capacity and only if the petitioner had been convicted by the criminal court then the respondents could have taken action against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has exhibited an act not expected of a member of a disciplined Force.

5. It is contended that merely upon registration of FIR as member of public in his private capacity, the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner and the action is a drastic action which violates all legal principles.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was involved in criminal case under Section 376 and such a conduct is not expected of a member of disciplined Force. The conduct of the petitioner was so grave that enquiry was not reasonably practicable and therefore the authority rightly invoked Article 311(2) of Constitution of India and dismissed the petitioner from service.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner has committed rape on a lady. No charge sheet was issued to the petitioner but the order Annexure P-2 which is penalty order mentions as under:-

“यह क िनलं बत/आर क 418 पु प े साके त ारा कया गया कृ य एवं उसके उपरो ानुसार पंजीब अपराध अ यंत गंभीर कृित के ह जससे समाज म वभाग क छ व के ित नकारा मक सदं ेश पहुंचा है, जो सवथ ा अनुिचत है। साथ ह आर क वष 2017 स े वभाग म सेवारत होकर बुिनयाद िश ण ा है, जसस े कतई यह आशा नह ं क जा सकती क उस े वभागीय िनयम का ान नह ं। अतः पुिलस जैस े अनुशािसत एव ं मया दत बल म रहत े हुए उ कृ य का रत कर आर क ारा नैितक अ ोपतन एव ं अमया दत आचरण तुत करत े हुए पुिलस रे युलेशन के पैरा . 64 (2) (3) एवं (11) तथा िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 3 के उपिनयम 1(3) म िन हत ावधान के वपर त आचरण दिशत कर वभाग क छ व को आघात पहुंचाया है। अतएव उ ार क को पुिलस वभाग जैस े अनुशािसत एवं मया दत बल म रखा जाना वभाग स े छल करने जैसा है। अतः अनुशासिनक जांच यथोिचत यवहार (Reasonable Practicable) नह ं होने स े सं वधान के अनु छेद 311 के ख ड-2 के उपख ड ारा यथा प रक पत आधार सुनाए जाय, जांच क जाये, संभव नह ं है। िनलं बत/आर क 418 पु प े साके त त का. र त के , जला र वा ारा का रत घटना के संबंध म पंजीब अपराध स े प होता है क उसका कृ य पुिलस सेवा के कत य के पूणत ः वपर त होकर द ू षत, आपरािधक मनोव ृ क णे ी का है, जसके कारण उस े पद युत (बखा त) कए जाने के पया आधार ह ।”

9. The authority has held that the conduct of the petitioner is contrary to para 64(2)(3) and (11)