RISAL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 13-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 544 
RISAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2839 of 2011) 
MAY 13, 2014 
[DIPAK MISI~ AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Service law - Dismissal from service - Dispensing with 
the disciplinary inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) - Absence of 
C ascription of reasons: - Held: Order of dismissal passed 
against the Sub inspector by the Superintendent of Police 
dispensing with the inquiry unsustainable - Non-ascribing of 
reason while passing an order dispensing with enquiry, which 
othenvise is a must, cfefinitely invalidates such an action -
D Order passed by the High Court upholding the dismissal of 
employee, set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
311(2)(b). 
The appellant-Assistant Sub Inspector was involved 
E in a corruption sting operation in a television channel. 
The Superintendent of Police dismissed the appellant 
dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry under Article 
311 (2)(b) of the Constitution, without ascribing reasons 
for the same. Both the High Courts upheld the order 
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the instant 
F appeal. 
• 
Allowing the app~:ral, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order by the Disciplinary Authority is 
G bereft of reason. Non-ascribing of reason while passing 
an order dispensing with enquiry, which otherwise is a 
must, definitely invalidates such. an action. The order 
passed by the Superintendent of Police dispensing with 
the inquiry is totally unsustainable and is hereby 
H 
.544 
RISAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
545 
·annulled. The order of the High Court giving the stamp 
A 
of approval to the ultimate order without addressing the 
lis from· a proper perspective is also indefensible and 
resultantly, the order of dismissal passed by the 
disciplinary authority has to pave the path of extinction. 
The order passed by the High Court and .that of the 
B 
disciplinary authority are set aside. [Paras 6, 10 and 11] 
[548-B-C; 550-D-E] 
Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsitam Patel (19'85) 3 SCC 
398: 1985 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 131; Jaswant Sing v. State of C 
'Punjab and Others (1991) 1 SCC 362: 1990 ( 3) Suppl. SCR 
354; Reena Rani v. State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC 215: 
2012 (3) SCALE 519 - relied on. 
1.2. The appellant would be deemed to be in service 
till the date of superannuation. As he has attained the age 
D 
of superannuation in the meantime, he shall be entitled 
to all consequential benefits. Needless to say, the 
respondents are not precluded from initiating any 
disciplinary proceedings, if advised in law. However, it is 
clarified that the observations herein should not be 
E 
construed as a mandate to the authorities to initiate the 
proceeding against the appellant. The State Government 
should conduct itself as a model employer and act with 
the objectivity which is expected from it. [Para 11] [550-
F-0; ~1~ 
F 
Case Law Reference : 
(1985) 3 sec 398 
(1991) 1 sec 362 
. (2012) 10 sec 215 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Para 6 
Para 7 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2839 of 2011. 
G 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2008 in 
B 
C.W.P. No. 19816 of 2008 of the High Court of Punjab & 
Haryana at Chandigarh. 
S . .Janani, Deepak Goel, Sunando Raha for the Appellant. 
Manjit Singh, Nupur Choudhary, K.M. Gupta for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave, the 
assail is to the defensibility of the judgment and order dated 
21.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 19816/2008 whereby the Division 
Bench has concurred with the order of dismissal of the 
appellant passed by the Government after dispensing with the 
D inquiry as provided unde1r Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution. 
2. The broad essential facts which need to be adumbrated 
for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant, 
an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ad hoc Sub-Inspector) serving in 
E the Department of Police in the State of Haryana, as alleged, 
was involved in a corruption sting operation in a television 
channel. Because of the said alleged sting operation, the 
Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, vide order dated 
19.06.2008, after referring to the news item in the television 
F channel, proceeded to pass the following order: 
" 
2. The above said act on the part of above official shows 
his criminal activities. He being a member of a dis

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