1. Dismissal from police service without formal departmental enquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) for alleged misconduct – challenge to punishment order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
TARSEM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 2004
Decided on : 25-01-2006
The subjective satisfaction of a disciplinary authority to dispense with a formal enquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India must be based on objective criteria and supporting material, rather than arbitrary grounds or mere conjecture.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2), second proviso (b) - Dismissal from service without enquiry - Subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective criteria and cannot be dispensed with lightly, arbitrarily, or as a ruse to avoid holding an enquiry. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Reliance on a preliminary enquiry to dispense with a formal departmental enquiry, without complying with minimal requirements of natural justice, is against the canons of fair play and justice. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A police constable was dismissed from service without a formal departmental enquiry. The dismissing authority recorded satisfaction that the employee could intimidate witnesses and influence the outcome. This decision was based on a preliminary enquiry report. The dismissal was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subjective satisfaction of the statutory authority was not supported by any objective criteria or documentation. It was observed that since a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, there was no justifiable reason why a formal departmental enquiry could not be initiated.
Issues: Whether the dispensing of a formal departmental enquiry under the second proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was legally sustainable in the absence of objective material.
Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional right conferred upon a delinquent cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily. The authority's satisfaction that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable must be based on objective material. In the absence of such material, the order dispensing with the enquiry is arbitrary and unsustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside; appellant directed to be reinstated with liberty to the respondents to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
administrative law
- natural justice
- appellate review
-
judicial review
- finality under article 311(3) can be tested for arbitrariness (Para 12)
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued arbitrary dispensation of enquiry; respondent justified on ground of witness intimidation. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
3. No objective material supported dispensing with enquiry; preliminary enquiry alone insufficient to bypass natural justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Dispensing with departmental enquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) must be based on objective material, not arbitrary or a ruse. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed; dismissal set aside; reinstatement with liberty to initiate fresh enquiry; back wages to abide by result. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Under what conditions can a disciplinary authority dispense with a formal departmental enquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b)?
Only when objective material supports the subjective satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable; not arbitrarily or as a ruse to avoid enquiry. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Can the mere existence of a preliminary enquiry justify dispensing with a regular departmental enquiry?
No, because if a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, a formal enquiry could also be initiated; dispensing based solely on preliminary enquiry violates natural justice. (Para 11 )
8. Can the finality of the disciplinary authority's decision under Article 311(3) be challenged in court?
Yes, the decision is final but can be tested if arbitrary, mala fide, or a ruse to avoid enquiry. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20.01.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the order of punishment dated 6.11.1997.
2 The basic fact of matter is not in dispute.
3. The appellant herein was charge-sheeted for commission of the following misconduct :-
" (1) On 11.10.1997 at about 10 pm he along with his above said accomplices entered the house of one Dara Singh s/o Madan Singh resident of Mohalla Ram Bagh City, Barnala and outraged the modesty of his wife by inflicting pinches on her body. They forcefully extracted Rupees One hundred from Dara Singh. They threatened him of dire consequences if he made any complaint against them or deposed against them or helped in any criminal or departmental proceedings against them.
(2) Constable Tarsem Singh No. 4C/371 on 11.10.1997 in between about 10/11 p.m. along with his other two above colleagues caught hold of one Ravinder Kumar s/o Kamaleshwary Yadav r/o Bharai District Purnia, Bihar a migrant labourer, stuffed cloth in his 2 mouth and had carnal intercourse with him against the law of nature. FIR No. 228 dated 13.10.1997 Under section 377, 34 IPC P.S. Kotwali Barnala has been registered him. This incident took place at grain market, Barnala.
(3) He along with his other two accomplices further caused threats of dire consequences to anyone deposing against him in an enquiry/investigation which has further caused a scare amongst colleagues and citizens. That in the public and administrative interest the retention of above said constable Tarsem Singh 4C/371 is considered wholly undesirable."
4. On the basis of the said allegations alone and without any further material, the PPS, Commandant, 4th Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, on arriving at a purported satisfaction that the appellant could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threatening and other means, a formal departmental proceeding need not be initiated. The said authority further took into consideration report of a preliminary enquiry conducted through Mr. Gurbachan Singh, DSP, Adjutant 4th Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala and, on that basis opined, "There seems no need of a regular departmental enquiry against Tarsem Singh No. 4C/371".
5. The appellant was dismissed from service. An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the appellant. The appellate authority held :-
"I have carefully examined the pleas of the representation along with relevant record and find the same without any substance. Case FIR No. 228 dated 13.10.1997 Under section 377/34 IPC Police Station, Kotwali Barnala stands registered against the appellant and his companions which is under investigation and will be sent to court for judicial verdict in due course. The appellant is guilty of gravest acts of misconduct proving complete unfitness for police service and the punishment awarded to him is commensurate with the misconduct. I find no reasons to interfere with the orders already 3 passed by the punishing authority and the appeal is rejected."
6. The appellant thereafter moved the Inspector General of Police, Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, but he was not favoured with any response thereto. The appellant thereafter filed a Writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 14467 of 1999 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By an order dated 12.10.1999, the High Court directed the said authority to pass an appropriate order and preferably a speaking order within one month from the production of the certified copy thereof. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, the Inspector General of Police, upon hearing the appellant in person, passed an order dated 26.11.1999 dismissing the said representation stating that :
"From a perusal of the record of the case, I am satisfied that the nature of the misconducts committed by the petitioner which are proved from t
