KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kartar Singh, is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who was allocated to the State of Haryana, on the reorganisation of the erstwhile composite State of Punjab under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 , but has come back again to the Punjab State. He joined service as a Constable in the year 1948, and rose to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by February, 1964. While he was posted at Police Station, Chhapar, in Ambala District (Haryana), an incidence took place between him and the Station House Officer, Shri Sukhdev Raj, respondent 5, on 15th November, 1966 and they grappled with each other. Both these officers made entries in the daily diary, each throwing responsibility on the other and respondent 5 is stated also to have sent a communication to the higher authorities alleging that the petitioner was inefficient, corrupt and misbehaved. Shri Dharam Singh, respondent No. 2, was the Superintendent of Police Ambala, at the relevant time, and he put the petitioner made under suspension by an order of 16th November, 1966. He also ordered an enquiry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The suspension order was subsequently revoked and the petitioner reinstated. The Deputy Superintendent held some sort of preliminary inquiry and submitted a report after which a notice was issued of the petitioner on 3rd December, 1966, to show cause why he should not be censured for his alleged misconduct on 15th November, 1966. A copy of the notice is Annexure "A" with the writ petition wherein it is stated that the allegation was that the petitioner grappled with Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Raj in front of the Police Station Chhaper in the presence of Police Station staff and public men and thus lowered the prestige of the police force. The petitioner made an application to respondent 2 for supply of copies of certain documents which the former considered to be necessary to enable him to submit a complete and exhaustive explanation to the show cause notice. He had in the meantime been transferred to Karnal. By a letter dated 20th January, 1967, respondent 2 permitted the petitioner to consult the record in the office of the former and to submit his explanation within seven days of the receipt of the said letter. The petitioner inspected some records including daily diary of 15th November, 1966, and the statements recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the course of preliminary inquiry. The petitioner was not satisfied and was wanting more record and on this issue correspondence continued between him and respondent 2. The office of respondent 2 asked the petitioner to make an application for copies of the documents after affixing Court-fee stamp of 0.40 paisas and further deposit Rs. 2/- for each statement with the Line Officer, Ambala, before 25th February, 1967. The inquiry was still pending when the confidential report for the period from 30th August, 1966 to 9th December, 1966, became due. Shri Dharam Singh, Superintendent of Police respondent 2, in his confidential remarks reported about the petitioner had quarrelled with the Station House Officer, Chhappar, and made it a communal issue. As regards reliability, it was stated that in view of his behaviour at Police Station Chhappar, he could not be relied upon. In the final analysis, the petitioner was warned to removed his defects and a copy of the warning (Annexure 'D') was directed to be placed on his confidential file. A copy of the warning was also sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, for information. The departmental inquiry which had been started against the petitioner concluded afterwards and respondent No. 2 further imposed the punishment of censure. A copy of the order giving reasons for the punishment of censure is appended as Annexure "J" to the writ petition. It is the validity of both the orders, Annexure "D" giving a warning and Annexure "J" imposing the punishment of censure that has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the writ petition must be allowed on the short ground that the action of respondent No. 2 was in violation of the rules of natural justice. There is no manner of doubt that some incident in which the petitioner and Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Raj were involved did take place but each of the officers had a version of his own to give. Respondent No. 2, then Superintendent of Police, served a show-cause notice on the petitioner on 3rd of December, 1966, and the charge levelled was that the petitioner lowered the prestige of the police force, by behaving in a most indisciplined manner by grappling with Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Raj. The petitioner asked for copies of several documents about which correspondence as referred to above went on though a part of it was wholly unnecessary. Be that as it may, the fact remains that an inquiry against the petitioner was pending and it was before the conclusion of that inquiry the respondent No. 2 submitted a confidential report about the petitioner for the period from 30th August, 1966 to 9th December, 1966, giving him adverse remarks founded on that very incident which was the subject matter of the inquiry. It was positively asserted in the said report that the petitioner had "quarrelled with the Station House Officer and made it a communal issue". Again, on the basis of this confidential report, a warning was administered to the petitioner. Admittedly, after having expressed his opinion about the incident in the confidential report, the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 2, could not bring to bear an open and unbiased mind on the explanation furnished by the petitioner or the evidence produced by him. He was indeed bound to stick to what he had said earlier and the same thing happened. It could not be fair and just to an officer that any confidential report adverse to him should have been based on an incident which was yet to be inquired into. Such a course of action is violative of the elementary rules of natural justice as it deprives the petitioner of an opportunity to be heard. I am fortified in this view by the observations of Narula, J. in Bhajan Singh v. Shri Bahal Singh and another,1967 SLR 601, with which I am in respectful agreement. In that case, an allegation had been made against Bhajan Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, while he was posted at Rohtak, and an inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty and the officer was reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He submitted an appeal against that order to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, and before the same could be disposed of, the Superintendent of Police gave confidential remarks against him on the basis of the subject matter of inquiry which resulted in his reversion. In the instant case, the circumstances are far too serious inasmuch as no inquiry had been concluded and the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 2, gave an adverse report to the petitioner which resulted in a warning to him. It cannot be gainsaid that the warning itself a punishment.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders Annexures 'D' and 'J' relating respectively to the warning administered to the petitioner on the basis of the confidential report for the period from 30th August, 1966, to 9th December, 1966, the punishment of censure given to him after the inquiry, must be quashed. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner which are assessed at Rs. 100/-.