GOPALJEE JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected cases. Common questions arise for consideration in this batch of three cases. They are preferred against the common judgment of S.K. Singh, J. dated 10.1.1992 rendered in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 713, 714 and 715 of 1988. The Appellants are Police Constables in the State of Bihar. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. They were dismissed from service. Annexure-I is the order of dismissal dated 19.11.1986 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Annexure-II is the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 20.6.1987 and Annexure III is the order passed by the Inspector General of Police dated 30.12.1987. The said annexures were challenged before the learned single Judge; but without success. The Petitioners in the writ applications have come up in Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) We heard Counsel.

(3.) Three points were urged in support of the appeals. They are: (1) The Appellants were not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. This is a fatal infirmity to the orders of dismissal. The relevant rule in the Police Manual as also the plea taken up in this regard before the Inspector General of Police were referred to. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Union of India V/s. Mohd. Ramzankhan, 1991 1 SCC 588 and Managing Director, ECIL V/s. B. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727. (2) The appellate order affirming the order of dismissal is not a speaking order. No reason is given in the appellate orders. Since the appellate authority was exercising quasi-judicial powers, the failure to give reasons in the appellate orders is fatal; and (3) the orders impugned affect the livelihood of the Appellants. So, procedural infinities should have been held to be fatal.