CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. versus AJAY MANCHANDA ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 26-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(b). 
c 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
v. 
AJAY MANCHANDA ETC. 
MARCH 26, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 A1ticle 311(2}-Second Proviso-Clause 
Dismissalc-Dispensing with enquiry--l'olice Office1--Allegation of ex-
ortion-Enquiry by Deputy Superintendent of Police-Report confinning al-
legation and stating that complainant and witnesses were threatened and 
terrorised by Police Officer--f'anic-stricken witnesses and complainant not 
willing to pursue the matter--f'assing dismissal order in such circumstances 
D dispensing with .enquirj-Held valid. 
• 
Police Officer-Extortionc-Complaint by Advocate-Enquiry by Super-
-t-
intendent of Police-Report that Police Officer misused his official position 
and extorted money-But no report of terrorising the witness or com-
' 
. 
. 
E plainant-<::omplainant writing to Senior Superintendent of Police that in view 
of compromise with Police Officer he does not wish to pursue the com-
plaint-SSP infening from such· writing. that complainant was terrorised by 
Police Office,-,[nference held not justified-Dismissal of Police Officer 
with~!li enquily held not valid-Service Law. 
· 
F 
Judicial Review 
· Service Law-Civil servanrDismissal without regular departmelltal 
enqui1y-Judicial review-Scope and extent of 
The respondents A and K, both Sub-Inspectors of Police in the State 
G of Punjab, were dismissed from service under clause (b) of Second Proviso 
to Article 311(2) i.e. without regular departmental enquiry. The charge 
against the former was that as an Investigation Officer in a case he had 
extorted Rs. 50,000 from an accused and had further demanded the same 
amount from him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the 
H enquiry reported that the complaintant and other witnesses were so ter-
918 
CHANDIGARH ADMN., UNION TERRITORYv. A. MANCHANDA 919 
rorised by threats given by A that they had expressed their inability to . A 
pursue·the matter in the court of faw or in any other enquiry. against him 
an'd ·to make any formal statement in this regard. On the basis of this 
report the Senior Superintendent of Poiice was satisfied that in vie\\> of 
inability of the witnesses to come forward to depose against the delinqnent 
~ 
i 
-~h 
~ 
~ -·~· 
' . , .. 
officer a regular departmental enquiry was uot reasonably prac"ticable. B 
Conseque'!tly he passed the ~}~mi,ssal 0rde~ i!' e~e~cise of the ~ow~r. under 
1 
Article 311(2)(b). The dismissal order was successfully challenged before 
the Ad.;.inistrative T~ibu~al ~hlch.held th~t (i) th~ i~p~gned o~der doe~ 
. 
• 
. ""' 
. 
• 
'. 
f 
> 
' 
•t "' ·... 
• 
h,-, 
. 
not state.that A had given any threats .to any of t_he witnesses. or the 
complaina~t; .{nd (ii). mer~iy becan~e a po'lice otf.~er w~~ the ~ccuse!l, it 
4• 
.-
& 
' 
' 
• 
' 
.,, 
... J. 
. 
' 
. 
' 
.. 
_, -
cannot be presumed that no.one will come forward to depose against him. C 
-· 
r 
. ... 
~· 
. 
•· 
~.-· . . 
. .. -
__ ·: 
It.also commented on the Senior Sup,erintendent of Police observing that 
.. 
-
'·' 
'' 
-· 
' 
: 
. "' 
.-. - " 
. 
. 
he "has taken, the matter. in a very, casual manner ;.without giving due 
' 
,, 
' 
• ' 
• 
'~·-
._ .. ; 
' ,_ 
u 
. -
consideration and applying his dispassionate discretion in the issnance of· 
the impugned order. and coming to the conclusioil to dispense witll"'the 
. 
- . 
' 
, 
'-. ,_ '. 
-
-. 
;,... . 
regular en_quiry". 1 
r ,,..,-•L 
a~ ... 
~ t 
• 
, 
• •. '~""'.-.•. '""' 
• ,_ ~-
D 
:_.;.'~'1 
.,,. 
"ll 
t•· 
., ' ..• The charge against the other respondent K was .that he .had extorted 
an ~mount of rupees :nine hundred _from- an. advocate on .the. ,pretext. ~f .a 
minor.traffic violation. The .Snperintendent·of.·Police (headquarters) who 
·conducted the·enquiry·reported that K had committed gross misuse of his 
official position·_ and extorted money from an innoceiat· victim, .the _.cOm-
plainant-Advocate, as a fine for violation of traffic regulation and misap· · 
'prcipriated ·a major pa<! of tlie amount to himself •. However, he did not 
report that K had either terrorised the complainant or the witnesses. On 
receiving the Enquiry ReporUhe Senior Superintendent of Police wrote to 
E 
;the complainant-Advocate .to meet.him in connection with enquiry,c but the F 
··I 
·fatter requested for an alternative date. However, in response to second 
letter of SSP the complainant-Advocate ·replied that .since a :comprom

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.