Mere Writing One Line In Order That It's Not Practicable Not Enough To Dispense With Departmental Inquiry: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that mere writing one line in an order that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not compliance of mandate of either Constitution or Punjab Police Rules.
The Court said that as per Article 311 of the Constitution, an inquiry can also be dispensed with where it is not reasonably practicable to hold the same.
The Court observed thus in a petition seeking setting aside of the order by which a man was dismissed from service without holding inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
A Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal held, “The reason advanced by SSP for dispensing with inquiry is not the actual reason because same reason has been advanced in every case where there is FIR against serving police officer. The respondent can dispense with inquiry if actually it is not practicable to hold inquiry. Mere writing one line in the impugned order that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not compliance of mandate of either Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. The respondent instead of straight away dismissing the petitioner could put him under suspension and thereafter conduct inquiry.”
The Court added that such course was adopted in the case of co-accused, thus, there was no reason to adopt different course in the case of petitioner accused. It also noted interestingly that FIR was registered against the petitioner as well as the co-accused and he has been re-instated before awaiting conclusion of criminal proceedings.
"A conspectus of aforesaid Article reveals that in case of conviction, inquiry may be dispensed with. Inquiry may also be dispensed with where it not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. In the case in hand, respondent has concluded that no witness on account of fear of petitioner would come forward, thus, it is not practicable to hold inquiry. The respondent has miserably failed to consider that foundation of dismissal of petitioner is registration of FIR for accepting illegal gratification”, it said.
The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24 read with Article 311 of the Constitution and it is not a first case where the jurisdictional SSP of State of Punjab has dispensed with inquiry as contemplated by 1934 Rules and Constitution.
Advocate Anupam Bhardwaj represented the petitioner while DAG Pawan Kumar represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Probationer Sub-Inspector in 2014 and two FIRs under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were registered against two men. The respondent found that during the course of investigation of aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner accepted illegal gratification from the accused of the aforesaid FIRs. An FIR under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 59 of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner.
The petitioner was dismissed vide an order of SSP, Tarn Taran, however, co-accused was put under suspension. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed vide an order passed by Inspector General of Police. He further unsuccessfully preferred appeal/representation before the Director General of Police.
The High Court in view of the above facts remarked, “This Court has found that as soon as an FIR is registered against a police official, the jurisdictional SSP opts to dispense with the inquiry. He does not think it necessary to conduct inquiry which is mandatory. As per 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.”
The Court further noted that witnesses of criminal case were bound to be key witnesses of the departmental inquiry and if the respondent despite being jurisdictional SSP is unable to secure presence of witnesses and create free and fair atmosphere, it is highly unbelievable that those witnesses would depose before the trial court against the petitioner.
“… this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents without any logical reason dispensed with mandatory inquiry. The impugned orders deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. … It is made clear that petitioner, as conceded, shall not be entitled to back wages. The respondent shall be free either to conduct departmental inquiry after following due procedure prescribed by Punjab Police Rules or take appropriate decision after conclusion of criminal proceedings”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application and set aside the impugned orders.
Cause Title- Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:066235)
