SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has prayed for the grant of following reliefs: - (i) to set aside and quash the impugned orders Annexures P -A and P -B dated 16.1.1993 and 14.11.1995 respectively, (ii) to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith and to treat the period of forced un -employment as on duty, (iii) to issue directions to the respondents to pay to the applicant difference of pay with effect from 26.11.1992 when he was placed under suspension and full pay w.e.f. 16.1.1993 till the date of his reinstatement; and (iv) to grant such other consequential service benefits, which the Honble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and just in facts and circumstances of the matter, besides those flowing by quashing orders Annexures P -A and P -B.

(2.) The case of the applicant, as made out in the Original Application, is that he was holding the post of Constable/Driver in the Police Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. After the passing out from Police Training School, Junga in February, 1989, but for a short spell when he was deputed to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bharari he remained attached to the 1st H.P. Armed Police Battalion, Junga. For doing exceptionally good work and exhibiting a high sense of devotion and dedication to duty during 1989 -90, he was given appreciation letter "A" class dated 31.5.1990 with cash award of Rs. 50/ - by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. A copy of the appreciation letter is Annexure -PD. However, the services of the applicant were brought to an end by his dismissal on suspicion, misunderstanding, false charges of negligence, dereliction of duty, disobedience, causing loss to government" and misuse of Vehicle after issuing him a show cause notice but without holding an inquiry. The applicant was not given reasonable time even to file reply to the show cause notice as the respondent No.4 was in hurry to dismiss the applicant from services and, as a result, impugned order Annexure P -A came into being which in itself indicates that the competent authority did not apply its mind before invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b), and acted with a prejudiced mind, most arbitrarily, illegally and unconstitutionally invoked the said provisions with a view to dispense with the departmental enquiry without recording reasons, whereas it was incumbent on the Commandant first Himachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion, Junga to have held an enquiry into the matter as laid down in Articles 311 of the Constitution read with Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules. Failure to do so, renders Annexure P -A as illegal and void. In the appeal preferred by the applicant vide Annexure P -G the Appellate Authority also did not address itself to the mandatory provisions of Rules 16.1. and 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable in Himachal Pradesh. Contrary to the law, laid down by the Honble Apex Court, the applicant was denied personal hearing by the Appellate authority in a case where pre -decisional enquiry was not held as contemplated under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution which vitiates the order Annexure P -B passed by the Appellate authority. It is further alleged that Appellate Authority acted in a partisan manner and deprived the applicant of his source of livelihood capriciously, arbitrarily by throwing the principles of natural justice to winds. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate authority Annexure P -B, the applicant filed second appeal before respondent No.2 vide Annexure P -H. However, respondent No.2 did not care to decide the second appeal till date, hence, the present Original Application.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim of the applicant in their written reply. It has been claimed that the applicant had been rightly dismissed from service for various acts of misconduct and disobedience brought on record without any element of bias. It is admitted that no departmental enquiry was held against the applicant, but he was served with show cause notice for dismissed from service for various acts of omission and commission brought on record without any mala -fide or prejudice against him and was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself by issue of show cause notice. It is also claimed that the provisions of article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India were rightly invoked as he was involved in smuggling activities as reported by the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Shimla and his activities were found prejudicial to the interest of state. It is also claimed that the impugned order of punishment passed by the competent authority and maintained by the Appellate Authority, is in -conformity with the PPR 16.1 and 16.2. The existence of any extraneous reason/consideration in dismissing the applicant has been denied.