HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service vide order dated September 9, 1991. He filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated January 9, 1992. He approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that there was no ground to dispense with the enquiry and to punish him. The learned Single Judge found that the record "belies the assertion of (the) counsel ..... that there was no material before the disciplinary authority. Record not only discloses the reason for dispensing with the holding of enquiry but also the material linking the petitioner with terrorists and anti-national elements". Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that it was merely on the report of the Station House Officer, Chamkaur Sahib, that the decision has been taken. Learned counsel submits that ipse-dixit of the Police Officer could not form the basis of a finding against the appellant. The claim made by the learned counsel has been controverted by Mrs. Charu Tuli who has appeared for the respondents.

(3.) It is, undoubtedly, correct that an employee is entitled to an opportunity before he is punished. There is a constitutional protection provided to the civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, a provision has also been made authorising the competent authority to dispense with the enquiry where it is satisfied that "it is not reasonably practicable" to follow the normal procedure. A safeguard has been provided to the employee inasmuch as the competent authority is obliged to indicate the reasons for arriving at a conclusion that it is not practicable to hold an enquiry.