EX. ASI AJAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash order dtd. 15/6/2017 (Annexure P/9) by which the petitioner stands dismissed from service by respondent No.5, while invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, and orders dtd. 12/2/2018 and 14/11/2018 (Annexures P/10 and P/12 respectively), vide which the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 16/5/2017 were dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt. and the Director General of Police, Punjab.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 22/1/1969, promoted as Head Constable on 1/2/2008 and as ASI on 12/10/2016. On 12/6/2017 a FIR No. 1 under Ss. 59 (2) (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, under Sec. 218, 466, 471, 120-B IPC came to be registered against LR/Inspector Inderjit Singh and others. During the investigation of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of a revolver, 1536 drug capsules, 04 injection bottles of pheniramine maleate, 04 bottles without labels and 55 injections of pentazocine lactate. Based on these recoveries Ss. 21, 22 of the NDPS Act and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act were added to the FIR. On the registration of the FIR, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala- respondent No. 5 dismissed the petitioner from service on 15/6/2017, by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, holding that in case the petitioner continues to serve in the police force, no witness from public or from police force, will come forward to depose against the petitioner for fear of their life and property. He shall be in a position to harm these witnesses and influence the investigation. Therefore, it was held that it is neither reasonable nor practicable to hold departmental inquiry.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has clean service record and he had 28 years of service to his credit and he never involved any illegal activities during his service career. A false and frivolous FIR was registered against the petitioner. The falsity of the case is established from the fact that though challan under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the petitioner under Ss. 21/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, however, charges were framed only under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and the charges under the provisions of the NDPS Act were dropped, as no offence was made out on other count. It is also submitted that the petitioner was working under Inspector-Inderjeet Singh, against whom initially FIR 1 dtd. 12/6/2017 was registered. After arrest of Inderjeet Singh, the higher officers pressurized the petitioner to become a witness against said Inspector and when he declined to become a false witness, the higher officer got annoyed and thus falsely implicated the petitioner in the said case and recovery was planted. It is submitted that the order of dismissal does not contain any cogent reason for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel relies upon judgments rendered in Prem Saran Bansal Versus State of Punjab and others 2014 (4) SCT 481, Gurcharan Singh Versus State of Punjab 2017 (1) SCT 712, CWP No. 14712 of 2017 titled Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 25/4/2022, CWP No. 21419 of 2020 titled Bikramjit and another Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 23/2/2022, CWP 13847 of 1995 titled Constable Harinder Kumar Versus State of Punjab and another decided on 24/10/2013, CWP No. 890 of 2011 titled Pammi Ram Versus state of Punjab and others decided on 4/2/2013, CWP No. 10423 of 2020 titled Sarabjit Singh Versus state of Punjab and another decided on 1/9/2020 and Baljit Singh Versus Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar 2008 (1) S.C.T. 686, in support of his argument, that a regular departmental inquiry can be dispensed with only under exceptional circumstances. It is argued that no cogent reason has been given for dispensing with the inquiry proceedings. There has to be some material available to hold that it would not be practical to hold a departmental inquiry.