IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2025 William Masih ….Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Harbir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of :

I. order dated 22.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was awarded penalty of dismissal from service;

II order dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby his appeal was dismissed; and III. order 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby his revision was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as a Constable. While he was posted at Amritsar, he was detailed for one accused namely Balwinder Singh son of Jagir Singh who was to be produced in a Court at Delhi on 18.01.2008 in connection with a case registered by Director of Revenue Intelligence. Balwinder Singh was a hardcore smuggler. He was involved in multiple cases under NDPS Act. The petitioner and Head Constable Rakesh Kumar had to take away aforesaid accused by train. They were issued Railway Warrant. They did not get railway ticket in lieu of Railway Warrant and travelled through a private car from Amritsar to Delhi. Balwinder Singh accused escaped from their custody. FIR No. 39 dated 19.01.2008 under Sections 222/223/224/120-B of IPC was registered against them. They faced trial and came to be acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated

23.12.2013.

3. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police vide order dated 22.01.2008 dismissed both the officers without conducting enquiry. The order of dismissal was passed invoking Clause (b) of Second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Amritsar. He further unsuccessfully preferred revision before Director General of Police.

4. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate submits that petitioner as well as co-accused have been acquitted by trial Court in the FIR which was registered alleging escape of accused Balwinder Singh from their custody. Co-accused Rakesh Kumar approached Civil Court assailing orders of dismissal passed by departmental authorities. Learned District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 24.05.2018 while setting aside judgment and decree of trial Court ordered to reinstate Rakesh Kumar without back wages.

The department was granted liberty to hold regular departmental enquiry.

5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab expressed his inability to controvert that petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Kumar stand acquitted in the criminal proceedings and Rakesh Kumar has already been reinstated.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner stands acquitted in criminal case. He has not been found guilty for escape of accused from his custody. The learned District Judge, Amritsar has ordered to reinstate co-accused Rakesh Kumar and liberty has been granted to department to initiate regular departmental enquiry.

8. 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 1934 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As per Clause (b) of 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 3