MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 14.7.1987 (Annexure P-3) dismissing the petitioner from service by dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry being not reasonably practicable has been questioned in the present writ petition. Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Constable in the year 1955 and after earning promotions, he was promoted as Sub Inspector in the year 1986. He was posted in Police Lines, Kapurthala where from he was transferred to the police post Circuit House, Amritsar on 13.5.1987 where he joined on 14.5.1987. After about two months, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing him from service. The impugned order reads as under :-

(2.) An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid impugned order under Rule 16(2) of Punjab Police Service Rules before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar (respondent no. 2) came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.1987 (Annexure P-6). Two grounds have been raised in support of the relief claimed in the petition - (1) that there is no valid ground to dispense with the enquiry as the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is not feasible and practicable; and (2) that both the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and the appellate order (Annexure P-6) are non-speaking and thus are liable to be set aside. I have perused both the orders (Annexures P-3 and P-6). The disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority have disclosed their mind for dismissing the petitioner from service, though elaborate reasons have not been recorded. I am of the considered view that once the authorities have applied their mind, non-recording of elaborate and detailed reasons cannot be construed to be a valid ground for quashing the order on that count. The plea of the petitioner in this regard is thus rejected.

(3.) This takes me to examine the other ground of challenge. The disciplinary authority has mentioned that it is not practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry as witnesses will not be available to depose for fear of injury. In the case of Union of India and others v. Tulsiram Patel and others, 1985 AIR(SC) 1416 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-