The High Court quashed an impugned order dispensing with a departmental enquiry against a police petitioner. The court held the Authority failed to show material on record justifying dispensation under Rule 8(2)(b). The dismissal was set aside.
Order dated 16.4.2018 quashed; liberty reserved to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12273 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sunit Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Nigam,Sri. Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
"Order dated 16.4.2018 is challenged on the ground that there exists no justification for the authorities to dispense with holding of inquiry and that dispensation of inquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank ( Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is in teeth of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter. Post as fresh on 13.7.2018."
the Constitution of India, which gives constitutional protection to a member of civil service of the Union or of the State. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel [AIR 1985 SC 1416], in which following observations were made at page 1479:-
"A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary proceeding lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the Government servant is weak and must fail."
Paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench is reproduced:-
"8. The words some "reason to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry" means that there must be some material for satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. The Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. has observed as under:
"It was incumbent on the respondents to disclose to the Court the material in existence at the date of the passing of the impugned order in support of the subjective satisfaction recorded by respondent No. 3 in the impugned order. Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry."
"...When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer."
Yadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others [2009 (9) ADJ 86], which has been reiterated and followed in the cases of Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (9) ADJ 23], Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (4) ADJ 851], and Gulabdhar Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (5) ADJ 835].
Order Date :- 13.7.2018 Ashok Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Administrative Authority could lawfully dispense with a departmental enquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) without recording specific reasons on record.
Whether dismissal of a police officer without a departmental enquiry when no material justified dispensation is legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Tulsiram PatelRelied on¶6
Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 · Who else cites this
Pushpendra SinghRelied on¶10
Pushpendra Singh
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.Relied on¶14
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and othersRelied on¶17
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 · Who else cites this
Managing Director ECIL vs. B. KarunakarRelied on¶22
Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Yadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. And othersRelied on¶20
Yadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others [2009 (9) ADJ 86]
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶20
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (9) ADJ 23]
Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶20
Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (4) ADJ 851]
Gulabdhar Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶20
Gulabdhar Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011 (5) ADJ 835]
Om Prakash YadavRelied on¶19
Om Prakash Yadav
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunit Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
