Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Saran Bansal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 September, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 9.9.2014
Prem Saran Bansal PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Shri Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Inder Pal Goyat, Additional A.G. Punjab.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner impugns the order Annexure P-4 by which his services have been terminated by resorting to the provisions of Articles 311(2)(b) and 311 (3) of the Constitution of India merely on the ground that F.I.R. No.11 dated 26.7.2013 stands registered against the petitioner.
The basis of the impugned order seems to be an alleged enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Bureau in the F.I.R. where the petitioner is stated to have admitted his mistake. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is of having stolen government medicine from Civil Hospital, Rupnagar which retained in his house at Kurali. The translated version of the F.I.R. (Annexure P-2) is GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -2- extracted here below :-
"On 25.7.2013, the VB Ropar, District Ropar on receipt of secret information a joint checking team was constituted. S.P.Vigilance Bureau Ropar Smt.Renu Singh, S.M.O. Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh, Dr.Vijay Kumar Sharma, Chief Vigilance Officer, office of Health Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, Shri Sukhbir Chand Drug Inspector, Ludhiana and Amit Lakhanpal Drug Inspector Patiala and Shri Gulbahar Singh Assistant Engineer and Chief Agriculture Officer from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ropar and Shri Paras Ram, Sub Inspector Agriculture Department were joined with the team as official witnesses. Under the supervision of this team, different teams of Police Station at the same time conducted raid with regard to sale of government medicine to the drug stores in an illegal manner. Out of the premises so raided no government drug was found from Ahuja Medical Store, Ropar, Kiranjit Nursing Hospital, Ropar, Bansal Medical Store, Chandigarh Road, Kurali, Aggarwal Medicos Singhpura Road, Kurali (the shop was closed) and Yamuna Devi wife of Tel Ram House No.226, Ward No.9, Kurali. During the checking about 300 pieces of government copper-T were recovered from Baweja Nursing Home, Preet Colony, Ropar regarding which Dr.Harinder Singh Baweja could not give any satisfactory answer. He stated that he is a Dental Surgeon and the work of Gynaecologist is being done by his wife Dr.Geeta Baweja and she must be knowing about these copper-T and at the moment GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -3- she is not present in the hospital. After taking these copper-T into possession by Drug Inspector Amit Lakhanpal sealed the same with his stamp. Thereafter the record of the store of medicines of Civil Surgeon, Ropar was taken into possession. Many discrepancies were found in his record. During the checking a raid was conducted at residential House No.127 Krishna Mandi Vivekanand Kaur, Ward No.10 Kurali belonging to Prem Saran Bansal, where 16 kinds of the medicines were recovered, the list of which is attached with the report. Prem Saran Bansal could not produce any licence for these medicines. These medicines were also taken into possession by Shri Sukhbir Chand Drug Inspector, Ludhiana and were sealed. On the same very evening the informer gave information that Prem Saran Bansal has one another house in the outskirts of Kurali where he has constructed shops and flats and has thrown many boxes in front of the house in the bushes, which the D.S.P. along with police party got recovered the same. The list of the recovered articles is also attached. Today on 26.7.2013, Prem Saran Bansal Store Keeper office of Civil Surgeon, Ropar was called by the D.S.P. and made enquiry from him. Then he stated that a mistake has been committed by him and that he has stolen these medicines from Civil Hospital, Ropar and has kept the same in his house in the out skirts at Kurali for sale and when his house was searched he asked his son and a labourer to throw the same out of the house and they did so. During interrogation Prem Saran Bansal also admitted that for this work Rakesh Kumar son of GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -4- Shri Hari Ram, who is Peon in the office of Civil Surgeon, Ropar is also associated with him. He used to steal government medicine from Civil Hospital and used to deliver the same at his house at Kurali and sometimes both of them used to steal the medicines from Civil Hospital and took them to Kurali. From the record of the above checking and the recovery effected from Prem Saran Bansal Store Keeper office of Civil Surgeon, Ropar and Rakesh Kumar Peon, office of Civil Surgeon, Ropar etc. a case under Section 13(1) C.D. read with 13(2) 88 of P.C. Act, 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C. 18(C) and 18(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1950 is made out. So far as recovery of copper-T from Baweja Nursing Home is concerned, in this regard the roll of Dr.Geeta Baweja and others would be considered during the investigation of the case. Report is submitted. Attached 1. lists of medicines recovered 5 pages Sd/- Balbir Singh DSP, Police, Vigilance Bureau Unit Ropar - Sukhbir Chand DI (Ldh-2). Amit Lakhanpal Insp. DI Patiala, Dy.S.P./Vigilance Bureau to register the case and investigation as per law. Satinder Singh SSP/VB.U."
This Court would however, not comment upon the allegation in the F.I.R., but would examine the issue as to whether the services of an employee could be terminated merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and by dispensing with the niceties of holding departmental proceedings.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Tulsi Ram Patel A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1416 as also several other judgments which GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -5- have been delivered approving the view expressed in Union of India and another v. Tulsi Ram Patel (supra), has held that the services of an employee cannot be terminated unless there are sufficient reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry. Even after conviction, such reasons would have to be recorded so as to withstand judicial scrutiny. Time and again, it has been observed that it is the conduct which leads to conviction that could form the basis of dismissal or termination of the services of an employee. Here there is only registration of an F.I.R. and thus when mere conviction cannot form the basis of dismissal then how can the respondents justify dismissal simply on registration of F.I.R.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Risal Singh v. State of Haryana 2014(3) S.C.T. 8 observed as follows :-
"6. We have already reproduced the order passed by the competent authority. On a bare perusal of the same, it is clear as day that it is bereft of reason. Non-ascribing of reason while passing an order dispensing with enquiry, which otherwise is a must, definitely invalidates such an action. In this context, reference to the authority in Union of India and anr. v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 is apposite. In the said case the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b), has ruled thus :
"130. The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold"
the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words used are "not reasonably practicable" and not "impracticable".
According to the Oxford English Dictionary GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -6- "practicable" means "capable of being put into practice, carried out in action, effected, accomplished, or done ; feasible". Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "practicable" inter alia as meaning "possible to practice or perform : capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished :
feasible". Further, the words used are not "not practicable" but "not reasonably practicable". Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "reasonably" as "in a reasonable manner " to a fairly sufficient extent". Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation."
The impugned order suffers from a grave fallacy and is contrary to the settled law of the land.
Finding the impugned order to be erroneous when it offers no reasons to dispense with the enquiry the impugned order would clearly be unsustainable in the eyes of law and is therefore, quashed. It may be noticed that this Court had granted an opportunity to the respondents to seek instructions as the order was palpably wrong. But instead of taking any remedial steps, the respondents have persisted with the order and have rather said that the Court may GHANSHYAM DASS 2014.09.17 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.21841 of 2013 -7- pass an order.
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was stated before this Court by the respondents that there would be no deviation from the stand of the respondents. When the Court issued notice of motion, it gave sufficient reasons which ought to have been noticed by the respondents to rectify their mistake more particularly when they are assisted by an able team of Law Officers. Instead of doing so, they have wasted the time of the Court.
No matter, how grave the charges are against an employee, the respondents cannot bye-pass the law and if the idea was to set an example for other erring employees, then they should have acted as per law by holding an enquiry with promptitude, established charges against the petitioner and thus taken recourse to process of law to arrive at the very same conclusion that they have done, but not by giving a go-bye to law.
The petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are burdened with costs of Rs.30,000/- which shall be deposited before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court within two months. The costs shall be recovered from the pay/pension (in case he is retired) of the officer responsible. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement along with all other consequential benefits.
(MAHESH GROVER)
September 9, 2014 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
GHANSHYAM DASS
2014.09.17 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
high court chandigarh