NARENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Article 311 of the Constitution of India for reasons recorded separately.

(2.) 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).

(3.) 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 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.