LexJASWANT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JASW ANT SINGH A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. NOVEMBER 27, 1990 B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311 (2) Second Proviso clause (b )-Dismissal under-Dispensing with departmental enquiry-Re- asoning-subjective satisfaction of the authority-Whether open to Judi- cial Review. C Service Law: Civil Services: Punjab Police Rules-Rule 16.2- D Dismissal from service-Dispensing with departmental enquiry contem- plated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution-Reasonable Practica- bility of holding an enquiry-Absence vf independent materials justify- ing the dispensation-Consequent dismissal order-Sustainability of. 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, insubordination and disloyalty. The Assistant Inspector-General of Police who passed the dismissal order, dispensed with the departmental enquiry contemplated by Article E 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 to cause physical injury to the withnesses and the enquiry officer. F G Against the said dismissal order, the appellant preferred 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 dis- missal 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 ma/a 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 309 IPC for attempt to commit suicide was registered against him and H he was convicted. However, the appeal preferred by the appellant was 354 • ,_ • JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 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. Tutsi Ram Patel & Ors., [1985)] Suppl. 2SCR131, relied on. Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Chellappan, [1976] l SCR 783, referred to. A B c 2. Although clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the D disciplinary authority in this behalf rmal, such finality can certainly be tested in a court of law and interfered with if the action is found to be arbitrary or ma/a 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 E 252; Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 112; Ikramuddin Ahmed Borah v. Superintendent of Police, Darrang & Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 663, relied on. 3. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the F 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 satisfac- tion 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 G the appellant was instigating his colleagues and was holding meetings with other police officials with a view to spreading hatred and dis- satisfaction towards his superiors. This allegation is based on his alleged activities on April 3, 1981 reported by SHO. That report is not forthcoming. It is no one's contention that the said SHO was threa- tened. The third respondent's counter also does not reveal if he had H A B c D E 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. verified the correctness of the in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.