PETITIONER:
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHINDER SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1997
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.
Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the Administration of the Union territory of Chandigarh, has been dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Senior Superintendent of Police dispensed with the enquiry invoking proviso (b) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and made the order of dismissal on 5th July, 1991. An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 30th September, 1991 whereupon the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal found, following its earlier order dated June 2, 1995 in O.A.No.232/ch/94 [Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration], that the ground upon which the Senior Superintendent has dispensed with the enquiry is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal and the appellate order and directed the administration to reinstate the respondent with all attendant benefits.
The order of dismissal reads as follows:
"ORDER
Whereas SI Mohinder Singh
No.CHG/1 was holding the post of
Sub Inspector in the Police
Department, Union Territory,
Chandigarh.
It was brought to my notice
that he indulged in gross misuse of
official power and attempted to
extort money from an innocent
victim after illegally detaining
and torturing him in the Police
Station, which amounts to grave
misconduct on the part of a Police
Officer.
Shri Baldev Singh,
Superintendent of Police,
Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh, has
also conducted an enquiry against
him for his aforesaid nefarious
activities and misdeeds and has
submitted a report which proves the
misconduct of I Mohinder Singh
NO.CHG/1.
From the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am
satisfied that he has indulged in
gross misuse of official power.
And further, I, Sumedh Singh
Saini, Senior Superintendent of
Police, Union Territory,
Chandigarh, after considering all
the facts and circumstances of the
case, am satisfied under sub clause
(b) of the proviso to sub-section
(2) of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, that it is
not reasonably practicable to hold
an enquiry against SI Mohinder
Singh No.CHG/1 for the reasons that
the witnesses cannot come forward
freely to depose against him in a
regular departmental enquiry.
Now, therefore, I, Sumedh
Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent
of Police, Union Territory
Chandigarh, appointing authority of
SI Mohinder Singh No.CHG/1, hereby
dismiss him from Government service
with immediate effect.
sd/-
Senior Superintendent of Police
UT, Chandigarh
SI Mohinder Singh, No.CHG/1,
PS North, Chandigarh."
The order of dismissal refers to and is based upon the report of Sri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the main features of the said Report. The Report says that the respondent arrested one Ranjit Singh from his house at about 11.45 P.M. on the night intervening 3rd/4th July, 1991 along with two friends of Ranjit Singh who happened to be in his house at that time, brought Ranjit Singh to the police station and tortured him mercilessly on the plea that he was harbouring terrorists. It is reported that the respondent was in a drunken condition at that time and that he was repeatedly asking Ranjit Singh about the whereabouts of a particular terrorist. The respondent also told Ranjit Singh that he was torturing him at the instance of his superior officers. He demanded a sum of Rupees sixty thousand from Ranjit Singh as a condition for releasing him. Ultimately, a sum of Rupees twenty thousand was paid to the respondent whereafter Ranjit Singh was released. The Report submits that the ground on which Ranjit Singh was arrested and tortured was wholly baseless and that it was done with a view to extort money from him. The last paragraph of the Report is relevant for the present purposes and reads thus:
"I may mention that this SI is a
terror in the area and in a regular
departmental enquiry no policemen
or private man is likely to depose
against him. In my presence he
intimidated the complainant, Shri
Ranjit Singh who appeared to be
visibly terrified of this Sub
Inspector. Also, the 3 guests of
Shri Ranjit Singh, who were also
victims of the harassment caused by
SI Mohinder Singh, left Chandigarh
immediately on being released as
they were terrified of the Sub
Inspector. Before going they told
Shri Ranjit Singh that they would
not testify against SI Mohinder
Singh because they were scared of
him. As such I am of the opinion
that no useful purpose would be
served by initiating any
departmental proceeding against him
and would recommend that stern
disciplinary action be taken
against him.
Sd/-
Superintendent of Police
Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh
Dt.5.7.91"
We are unable to understand the reasoning of the Tribunal when it says that the reason given by Senior Superintendent of Police is not sufficient reason for dispensing with the enquiry under proviso (b) to Article 311 (2). The order of dismissal recites that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against SI Mohinder Singh CHG/1 for the reason that the witnesses cannot come forward freely to depose against him in a regular departmental enquiry". Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 311, insofar as, they are relevant read thus:
"311. Dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank of persons
employed in Civil capacities under
the Union or a State.--
(2) No such person as aforesaid
shall be dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank except after an
inquiry in which he has been
informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard in respect of those
charges.
Provided that where it is
proposed after such inquiry, to
impose upon him any such penalty,
such penalty may be imposed on the
basis of the evidence adduced
during such inquiry and it shall
not be necessary to give such
person any opportunity of making
representation on the penalty
proposed.
Provided further that this
clause shall not apply--
(b) where the authority empowered
to dismiss or remove a person or to
reduce him in rank is satisfied
that for some reason, to be
recorded by that authority in
writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry;
or
(3) If, in respect of any such
person as aforesaid, a question
arises whether it is reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry as
is referred to in clause (2), the
decision thereon of the authority
empowered to dismiss or remove such
person or to reduce him in rank
shall be final."
Clause (3) of Article 311, it may be noticed, declares that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2), the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such person shall be final on that question. The Tribunal has not referred to clause (3) at all in its order. We are not suggesting that because of clause (3), the court or the Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor are we suggesting that in every case the court should blindly accept that recital in terms of the said proviso contained in the order of dismissal. Be that as it may, without going into the question of extent and scope of judicial review in such a matter, we may look to the facts of this case. The Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, has reported that the respondent "is a terror in the area" and, more important, in his very presence, the respondent "intimidated the complainant Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly terrified of this Sub Inspector". It is also reported that the other persons who were arrested with Ranjit Singh, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent.
Sri M.L. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that a similar allegation was made against the Inspector of Police [superior of the respondent] but that in his case, proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) was not invoked. We have seen the Report against the Inspector. We find that the allegation against him is entirely different. Above all, there is no allegation that the Inspector held out any threat to Ranjit Singh in the present of the Superintendent of Police or any other superior officer. The said plea has no substance whatsoever.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.