BALVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Balvinder Singh is a Police Constable. A regular departmental enquiry was held against him on the charge of remaining absent from duty without leave. A charge-sheet was served on him on 23rd of November, 1972 (Annexure P-1) The departmental enquiry was held by a Deputy Supeintendent of Police who, in his report held the petitioner guilty of the charge. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the petitioner from service on 5th May, 1973. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in a civil suit. This order was set aside by the civil court on the ground that no proper enquiry had been held because full opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to defend himself. Pursuant to the decree passed by the civil court the petitioner was reinstated vide an order dated 22nd of September, 1976, More than two years thereafter a second enquiry on the same charge was initiated against the petitioner and replica of the previous charge-sheet was served on him. This charge-sheet dated 11th of April, 1979, is annexure P-3. In the present writ petition the initiation of the second enquiry has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the previous dismissal order in pursuance of similar charge-sheet having been set aside by the civil Court, the matter cannot be reopened.

(2.) The State of Punjab opposed this writ petition on the plea that the previous dismissed order was set aside by the civil Court on a technical ground of the petitioner not having been granted full opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings and not because he was exonerated of the charge. It is pleaded that the second enquiry in such circumstances is not barred.

(3.) The judgment of the civil Court by which the petitioner's suit was decreed is Annexure P-4. It clearly shows that the petitioners dismissal from service in pursuance of the earlier enquiry was set aside because the Inquiry Officer did not afford a reasonable opportunity to him to defend himself. It is evident from the judgment that the enquiry against the petitioner was held to be improper and violative of the principles of natural justice and it was on that basis that the petitioner's suit was decreed. It is plain that the effect of this judgment is that the enquiry Officer's report was quashed and the State of Punjab was left at liberty to institute a fresh enquiry. The civil Court did not comment on the merits of the charge levelled against the petitioner and he was not absolved of the same. The Punjab State, therefore, cannot be considered barred to institute a fresh enquiry on the same charge. In this context, the Supreme Court's observations in The State of Assam and another v. J.N. Roy Biswas, 1975 AIR(SC) 2277, are pertinent. It was observed that no Government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched. The Supreme Court clarified that only if a disciplinary case has closed and the official reinstated on full exoneration the Government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise vested by rules in some authority. In the present case the disciplinary case against the petitioner was never closed by the State of Punjab. It was the civil Court which had set aside the petitioners dismissal from service due to the procedural defect in the enquiry holding that full opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner to defend himself.