Narender Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—Vide Order dated 30.10.2007(Annexure P-2), the Petitioners who were servingas Constables, were dismissed from service inexercise of powers conferred u/s 7 ofthe Punjab Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 16.1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 by the SeniorSuperintendent of Police, Patiala. It has alsobeen held that it is not in reasonably practicalto hold a regular departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India for reasons recorded separately.

2.The Petitioners filed an appealwhich has been dismissed vide Order dated9.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the DeputyInspector General of Police, Patiala Range,Patiala. The Petitioners filed revision petitionbefore the Inspector General of Police, Zonal-1,Punjab, Patiala which has been dismissed videOrder dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-6).

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-2), 9.6.2008 (AnnexureP-3) and 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) detailed above.

Learned Counsel for thePetitioners, in the short contention, contendsthat without assigning reasons, for not holding aregular enquiry, order of dismissal could nothave been passed by the Respondents. In thisregard, reference has been made to Ex. ConstableNirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2007 (2) SCT 151 wherein it has been held thatperusal of impugned order does not disclose anyfact which culminated into forming of opinionthat it was not possible to hold an enquiryagainst the Appellant and therefore orders were quashed. Reliance has also been placed on 1995 (7)SLR 807 Lalji Dass v. State of Punjab and Ors. wherein it has been held in Para 18 thatthe requirement of law is that if an order ofremoval is passed against a delinquent employee,he is to be afforded an opportunity of hearingand supplied a copy of the chargesheet. The onlyreason to dispense with the enquiry is that itwas not reasonably practicable to hold it. On thesaid ground, the writ petition has been allowedand impugned orders quashed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State contends that legal position cannot bedisputed.

Learned Counsel has not been ableto refer to any document that would show that theSenior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, hadseparately recorded the reasons for invokingprovision of Article 311(2) of the Constitutionof India, although the said fact has beenmentioned in Order, Annexure P-2. Learnedcounsel, under the circumstances, contends thatthe Respondents be given liberty to initiatefresh proceedings against the Petitioners.

7.In view of the above, Order dated30.10.2007 (Annexure P-2)is quashed beingwithout compliance of Article 311(2) Proviso (b) of the Constitution. Orders dated 9.6.2008(Annexure P-3) and 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-6)merely affirm Order Annexure P-2, and therefore,the same are also quashed. This shall however notentitle the Petitioners to be reinstated inservice. It shall be open to the Respondents tohold enquiry against the Petitioners inaccordance with law and pass fresh order ofpunishment. The Petitioners would be deemed to becontinuing under suspension. What treatmentshould be meted out to the period of suspension,shall be decided by the competent authority atthe time of passing of fresh order.

With the above directions, the petition is allowed.