DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order of termination dated 20.7.2014 (Annexure P-12) being violative of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of suspension order dated 23.5.2014 (Annexure P-9) as well as chargesheet dated 26.5.2014 (Annexure P-10). It is also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to pay all consequential benefits.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner was initially selected as Temporary Assistant Sub Inspector of Police by way of direct recruitment in State of Punjab and was allotted District Ferozepur vide order dated 23.6.1989. Subsequently, the petitioner was confirmed in the rank of ASI w.e.f. 31.10.1992 and was transferred from Ferozepur Range to Border Range vide order dated 6.2.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 18.10.1996 i.e. the date from which his juniors were promoted. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Insector w.e.f. 1.1.2010 and further to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order dated 24.7.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.5.2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension and order of regular inquiry was passed. The petitioner was also issued chargesheet dated 26.5.2014. During regular enquiry, three witnesses were examined but without dispensing with the regular inquiry, the impugned order of termination was passed on 20.7.2014, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner participated in the inquiry and remained present as and when he was summoned. Out of total four witnesses, three witnesses were examined but still impugned order of termination has been passed by dispensing with the regular inquiry, which is in contravention of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that for dispensing with the inquiry, reasons are necessary to be recorded. Simply by stating that it is not reasonably practicable to conduct inquiry, especially when inquiry has already been initiated, does not fulfill the legal sanctity of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel also submits that work of the petitioner had always been appreciated by the respondent-authority and nothing was against him. The impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The past good service record of the petitioner has not been considered while passing the impugned order of termination as he has served the respondent-Department for more than 25 years and has been promoted upto the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even many commendation certificates were issued to the petitioner by considering his good work. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1991 1 SCT 125, Ex. Constable Chhote Lal Vs. Union of India and others, 2000 10 SCC 196, of this Court in Gurmit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 1 SCT 41 and Subhash Bansal and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward6, Patiala and others, 2008 4 SCT 40, in support of his contentions.