Allowed

Narender Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2010CWP/243/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed dismissal orders against two constables as Article 311(2) procedures were not followed, but held petitioners do not get reinstatement; fresh proceedings can be initiated.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 30.10.2007, 9.6.2008, and 5.11.2008. Petitioners deemed to be continuing under suspension.

Narender Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.243 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 15, 2010

¶3

Narender Singh & another

¶4

.....PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Punjab & others

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S) . . .

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶9

PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

¶10

. . .

¶11

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶12

Vide Order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-2), the petitioners who were serving as Constables, were dismissed from service in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7 of the Punjab Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 16.1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. It has also been held that it is not in reasonably practical to hold a regular departmental enquiry under

¶13

CWP No.243 of 2009 [2]

¶14

Article 311 of the Constitution of India for reasons recorded separately.

¶15

The petitioners filed an appeal which has been dismissed vide Order dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. The petitioners filed revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Zonal-1, Punjab, Patiala which has been dismissed vide Order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-6).

¶16

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 (Annexure P-3) and 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) detailed above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the short contention, contends that without assigning reasons, for not holding a regular enquiry, order of dismissal could not have been passed by the respondents. In this regard, reference has been made to 2007(2) SCT 151 Ex. Constable Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab & others wherein it has been held that perusal of impugned order does not disclose any fact which culminated into forming of opinion that it was not possible to hold an enquiry against the appellant and therefore orders were

¶17

CWP No.243 of 2009 [3]

¶18

quashed. Reliance has also been placed on 1995 (7) SLR 807 Lalji Dass vs. State of Punjab & others wherein it has been held in Para 18 that the requirement of law is that if an order of removal is passed against a delinquent employee, he is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing and supplied a copy of the chargesheet. The only reason to dispense with the enquiry is that it was not reasonably practicable to hold it. On the said ground, the writ petition has been allowed and impugned orders quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondentState contends that legal position cannot be disputed.

¶20

Learned counsel has not been able to refer to any document that would show that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, had separately recorded the reasons for invoking provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, although the said fact has been mentioned in Order, Annexure P-2. Learned counsel, under the circumstances, contends that the respondents be given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioners.

¶21

In view of the above, Order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) is quashed being

¶22

without compliance of Article 311(2) Proviso (b)

¶23

CWP No.243 of 2009 [4]

¶24

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 not entitle the petitioners to be reinstated in service. It shall be open to the respondents to hold enquiry against the petitioners in accordance with law and pass fresh order of punishment. The petitioners would be deemed to be continuing under suspension. What treatment should be meted out to the period of suspension, shall be decided by the competent authority at the time of passing of fresh order.

¶25