UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. versus MOHINDER SINGH

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 14-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH 
FEBRUARY 14, 1997 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Dismissal-Departmental enquir}~Reasonable practicability 
of-Senior Superintendent of Police dismissed Sub-Inspector in the year 1991 C 
after dispensing with regular departmental enquiry-For the reason that wit-
nesses would not come forward freely to depose against the Sub-Inspec-
tor--Order of dismissal was based on report of Superintendent of Police after 
an enquiry into allegations against the Sub-Inspector of gross misuse of power 
and extortion of money by illegally detaining and torturing an innocent D 
person-The said report confinned the allegations and further stated that the 
Sub-Inspector was a terror in the area, that in the very presence of the 
Superintendent of Police the Sub-Inspector intimidated the complainant vic-
tim-Two other persons arrested along with the complainant-Victim and 
present there left the office of the Superintendent of Police terrified by the 
threats held out by the Sub-Inspector-Held: In such circumstances, keeping E 
in view the situation in Punjab in the year 1991, the conclusion of the Senior 
Superintendent of Police that holding of enquiry against the Sub-Inspector 
was not reasonably practicable, not unjustified-Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 311(2) proviso (b) & (3) .. 
The respondent-Sub Inspector was dismissed from service in the 
year 1991 by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of 
Police dispensed with the regular departmental enquiry-invoking Article 
311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution for the reason that witnesses would 
F 
not come forward freely to depose against the respondent. The order of 
dismissal was based on the report of the Superintendent of Police after an G 
enquiry into allegations against the respondent of gross misuse of power 
and extortion of money by illegally detaining and torturing an innocent 
person. The said report confirmed the allegations and further stated that 
the respondent was a terror in the area, that in the very presence of the 
Superintendent of Police the respondent had intimidated the complainant- H 
71 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A victim. Two other persons arrested along with the complainant-victim and 
present there immediately left the office of the Superintendent of Police 
terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. Under these cir-
cumstances the Senior Superintendent of Police concluded that holding of 
departmental enquiry against the respondent was not reasonably prac-
B ticable. 
c 
The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Central 
Administrative Tribunal; Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the 
present appeal. 
AIIoWing the appeal, this Court 
.. 
HELD : 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal has not referred to 
Article 311(3) at all in its order. It is not suggested that because of clause 
(3), the court or the Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor is it 
suggested that in every case the court should blindly accept the recital in 
D terms of the said proviso contained in the order of dismissal. In the instant 
case - keeping in view that the incidents were happening in the year 1991 
in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said 
to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold 
an inquiry against the respondent. (76-D-G] 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 787 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in 0.A. No. 1446 of 1991. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants. 
M.L. Verma and M.K. Dua for the Respondent. 
The 'Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the 
parties. 
~': 
' 
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the 
Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, has been dismissed 
H from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, 
-• 
... 
1 
----
: 
---< 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH v. MOHINDER SINGH (RP. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 73 
Chandigarh. The Senior Superintendent of Police dispensed with the en-
A 
quiry invoking proviso (b) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution 
of India and made the order of dismissal on 5th July, 1991. An appeal 
preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Inspector General of 
Police on 30th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.