Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagat Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 November, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.16663 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.M.No.8966 of 2012 and
C.W.P.No.16663 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 03.11.2012
Jagat Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.8966 of 2012 Replication is taken on record.
C.M.stands disposed of.
Main Case.
Petitioners have approached this court praying for quashing of the order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jind, order dated 2.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar rejecting the appeal of the petitioners and order dated 8.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2 rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioners.
C.W.P.No.16663 of 2011 -2-
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that vide the impugned order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-1), services of the petitioners have been terminated in exercise of powers under Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. The only reason assigned for not holding a departmental enquiry and to dispense with it is that the witnesses and complainant are not likely to come-forward to depose against the delinquent officials in the departmental enquiry. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners have simply been rejected on the same grounds.
Counsel for the petitioners has referred to para 8 of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sonepat dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-7) wherein the criminal trial, which had been initiated against the petitioners through FIR No.74 dated 3.3.2010 under Section 223/224 IPC registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat mentioning that the entire testimony of the prosecution case shows that there is no report on the case file which could show that accused Nos.1 to 3 (petitioners) were on duty on the specific date and time of alleged incident or that they were assigned the duty to commute the prisoners, who are stated to have escaped from their custody. His further contention is that the only ground which has weighed on the mind of the punishing Authority is that the criminals, who have escaped from the custody of the petitioners, were hardened criminals and had created terror in the region and because of lack of evidence, which was not likely to come against the petitioners, the process of dispensing with the enquiry has been resorted to by taking shelter of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India which is not sustainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the C.W.P.No.16663 of 2011 -3- case of Chief Security Officer and others vs. Singasan Rabi Das, AIR 1991 SC 1043. He accordingly, prays that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the subjective satisfaction is that the Punishing Authority, while exercising its powers under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India further one of the justifiable ground would be a situation where there is every likelihood of non-appearance of any evidence against the delinquent employee because of fear. The competent Authority having come to a subjective conclusion that it was not reasonable and practical to hold an enquiry against the petitioners and the exercise of such power by the Competent Authority being in accordance with the Constitutional mandate cannot be said to be unsustainable. The order of dismissal is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. There can be no doubt with regard to the contention of the counsel for the respondents that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority to exercise its power under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India but the said power is not an absolute power and its exercise has to be just and reasonable and should be supported by justifiable reasons. In the present case, the only ground which has been asserted and has been invoked for not holding enquiry against the petitioners, rather dispensing the same, is that the petitioners are likely to terrorize and intimidate the complainant not to come-forward to depose against them. This ground cannot be said to C.W.P.No.16663 of 2011 -4- be a just and reasonable ground for exercising the power under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. In any case, the allegations which have been asserted in the order against the petitioners are not of such a nature where such an opinion could be formulated by the Superintendent of Police. The observations made by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sonepat vide its judgment dated 11.4.2011, referred to above, also persuades this Court to take a view that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity to project their part of the stand in the departmental enquiry. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Chief Security Officer's case (supra) also supports the contention as has been raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; impugned orders dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-1), 2.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) and 8.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) are hereby quashed. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, if they so desire.
November 03, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE