ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Director General of Police, Punjab 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 on 21.10.1971 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1984. Vide order dated 21.10.1986 petitioner was dismissed from service by Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar in exercise of powers under Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India read with rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short 1934 Rules). Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, and the mercy petition has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, Punjab. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that there was no material available before the Competent Authority on the basis of which it could possibly form an opinion that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold enquiry. Further that the material, if any, on record has stood judicial scrutiny of the Designated Court and the petitioner having been acquitted, the very basis of the departmental action is shattered and therefore, it can be said that the impugned order is not based on any material. The orders, Annexures P-2 and P-3 have been challenged on the ground of non-application of mind. Respondents in their written statement filed through Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar have pleaded that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of sufficient material and acquittal of the petitioner from the Judicial Court has nothing to do with the order of dismissal which has been passed on different criteria. Respondents have further stated that the order of dismissal was passed before trial of the petitioner in the criminal case. In the departmental action and in the judicial trial, the evidence is weighed differently.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the charges into the allegations against the petitioner could form the subject matter of public trial in a sessions case, the enquiry into these allegations in departmental proceedings cannot be said to be impracticable. Counsel also contended that there was no material with the competent Authority to form an opinion that the petitioner was in league with extremists who committed the murder of one Comrade Baldev Singh Mann. In response to these submissions, Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has supported the impugned orders and argued that the exercise of powers by the competent Authority under the provisions of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India is bonafide and this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the reasons which prevailed with the Competent Authority for passing the order of dismissal.