Supreme Court of India
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 385, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 354, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 385, 1991 (1) SCC 362, 1991 AIR SCW 17, 1991 LAB. I. C. 258, (1990) 4 JT 554 (SC), 1990 (4) JT 554, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 276, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 959, 1991 UJ(SC) 1 276, 1991 BRLJ 75 110, (1991) IJR 459 (SC), (1991) 62 FACLR 137, (1991) 1 LAB LN 13, (1991) 1 SERVLR 180, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 959, (1991) 15 ATC 729, (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 136, (1991) 1 CURLR 1, 1991 SCC (L&S) 282
PETITIONER:
JASWANT SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/11/1990
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 385 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 354
1991 SCC (1) 362 1990 SCALE (2)1152
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311(2) Second
Proviso clause (b)---Dismissal under--Dispensing with de-
partmental enquiry--Reasoning-subjective satisfaction of the
authority--Whether open to Judicial Review.
Service Law: Civil Services: Punjab Police Rules--Rule
16.2--Dismissal from service--Dispensing with departmental
enquiry contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitu-
tion--Reasonable Practicability of holding an
enquiry--Absence of independent materials justifying the
dispensation---Consequent dismissal order--Sustainability
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, a Policeman, was dismissed from service
on the basis of certain allegations that he was instigating
his fellow police officials to cause indiscipline, insubor-
dination and disloyalty. The Assistant Inspector-General of
Police who passed the dismissal order, dispensed with the
departmental enquiry contemplated by Article
311(2) of the Constitution on the ground that it was not
feasible to hold an enquiry in view of the appellant's
threats that he with the help of other police employees,
would not allow holding of any departmental enquiry against
him and that he and his associates would not hesitate cause
physical injury to the witnesses and the enquiry officer.
Against the said dismissal order, the appellant pre-
ferred an appeal to the authorities which was of no avail.
He, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the dismissal order. The writ petition was
dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the summary dismissal of
his writ petition, the appellant preferred this appeal by
special leave.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the
action taken against him was clearly mala fide and actuated
by ulterior motives. It was also stated that on some earlier
occasions the appellant was placed under suspension but was
reinstated later. Also a case under Section 09 IPC for
attempt to commit suicide was registered against him and he
was convicted. However, the appeal preferred by the appel-
lant was
355
allowed and he was acquitted. It was further contended that
there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry
contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the
reason given therefore was wholly imaginary.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) of the Constitution can be invoked only when the
authority is satisfied from the material placed before him
that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental
enquiry. [363C]
Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsi Ram Patel & Ors., [1985)]
Suppl. 2 SCR 131, relied on.
Divisional Personnel Officer v.T.R. Chellappan, [1976] 1
SCR 783, referred to.
2. Although clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision ï7
3
finality can certainly be tested in a court of law and
interfered with if the action is found to be arbitrary or
mala fide or motivated by extraneous considerations or
merely a ruse to dispense with the enquiry. [361G]
Satyavir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 4
SCC 252; Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 112; Ikrarnuddin Ahmed Borah v. Superin-
tendent of Police, Darrang & Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 663,
relied on.
3. The decision to dispense with the departmental en-
quiry cannot be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the
concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned
authority is questioned in a court of law. it is incumbent
on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction
is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome
of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. [363E]
4.1. In the instant case, satisfaction was based on the
ground that the appellant was instigating his colleagues and
was holding meetings with other police officials with a view
to spreading hatred and dissatisfaction towards his superi-
ors. This allegation is based on his alleged activities on
April 3, 1981 reported by SHO. That report is not forthcom-
ing. It is no one's contention that the said SHO was threat-
ened. The third respondent's counter also does not reveal if
he had
356
verified the correctness of the information. To put it
tersely, the subjective satisfaction recorded in paragraph 3
of the order is not fortified by any independent material to
justify the dispensing with of the inquiry envisaged by
Article 311(2) of the Constitution. On this short ground
alone the impugned order cannot be sustained. [363G-H;
364A-B]
4.2. Moreover, the earlier departmental enquiries were
duly conducted against the appellant and there was no alle-
gation that the department had found any difficulty in
examining the witnesses in the said enquiries. It was incum-
bent on the department to disclose to the Court, the materi-
al in existence on the date of passing the order, but the
department could not disclose any such material. Besides it
is difficult to understand how the appellant could have
given the threats when he was hospitalised. [363F, F]
[This Court directed that the appellant should be rein-
stated in service forthwith, with all monetary benefits like
pay, allowances etc. available to him from the date of
dismissal.
JUDGMENT:
