LAWS(P&H)-1995-11-161

MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 02, 1995
MUKHTIAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt respectively. Petitioner has prayed that his dismissal from service be declared illegal and respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Petitioner joined police department as Constable in 1951; passed Lower School Course in 1961; was promoted as Head Constable in 1962; promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 1975 and thereafter on his passing the Upper School Course in 1985, he was promoted as Sub Inspector. Petitioner was working as S.H.O. Police Station Kartarpur in the year 1987 when he was transferred to Gurdaspur where he reported for duty on 15.7.1987. The petitioner was posted as Additional S.H.O. Police Station Sri Hargobindpur. Petitioner had hardly worked for 60 days as such when the order of his dismissal from service was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, in exercise of powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with rule 16.1(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short 1934 Rules). Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 1.1.1988 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the appeal. Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that the petitioner has more than 36 years' service to his credit and he was never dubbed any Reporting Officer as having links with terrorists and anti-social elements. According to the petitioner, orders against him have been passed without any evidence and the same have got no relationship with the material on the file, and that he had no links whatsoever with any terrorist and the evidence, if any, has been collected with an ulterior motive and for extraneous considerations. In regard to the allegation that the petitioner had links with one Sukhdev Singh, a hard-core terrorist wanted by the police, the petitioner has averred that Sukhdev Singh has two brothers namely Baldev Singh and Surti living at Shri Hargobindpur. Baldev Singh and Surti had land dispute with a contractor of the same village and the litigation had gone upto the High Court where Baldev Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3891 of 1987 and obtained stay of his dispossession. Petitioner has denied that he ever helped the brothers of Sukhdev Singh in their land dispute. Respondents in their written statement have not denied that the petitioner had more than 36 years of service to his credit and he was never dubbed by any Reporting Officer as having links with terrorists and anti-social elements, but have stated that report of Sh. Harjit Singh, D.S.P. Patiala has disclosed that petitioner had close links with Sukhdev Singh Bedi. They have stated at the time of passing the order of dismissal, the Senior Superintendent of Police was satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to conduct an enquiry for the reasons recorded in the order. They have also averred that the order has been passed with due application of mind and by taking into consideration all material placed before the Senior Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are without any basis and simply an excuse for not following the procedure of departmental enquiry. Counsel contended that there was no material with the competent Authority to form an opinion that the petitioner had links with terrorists or had helped Sukhdev Singh Bedi, a known terrorist. In answer to these submissions, Mr. S.K. Bhanot, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that the exercise of powers by the Competent Authority under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India bring bonafide, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the reasons which prevailed with the competent Authority for passing the impugned order of dismissal. He contended that in the circumstances as prevailing then, it would not have been possible for the department to establish the charge against the petitioner in regular enquiry under rule 16.1(2) of the 1934 Rules.