2016 Nabha Jailbreak | Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Termination Order Of Jail Authorities
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea challenging the dismissal order of jail authorities who were terminated from service due to the Nabha Jail Prison break incident in 2016.Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma opined, "the respondents have taken a decision after due application of mind and the requirement of reaching to such conclusion cannot be said to be unjustified...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea challenging the dismissal order of jail authorities who were terminated from service due to the Nabha Jail Prison break incident in 2016.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma opined, "the respondents have taken a decision after due application of mind and the requirement of reaching to such conclusion cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary in nature. In view thereof, decision taken to dispense with the enquiry and passing punishment order cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified."
In 2016, several armed men, wearing uniforms and posing as jail authorities in cars, entered Punjab's maximum-security Nabha Jail under the pretext of delivering handcuffed men disguised as prisoners. Six jail inmates were already waiting for them inside the porch between the two security gates, having convinced the staff to let them reach that point. These detainees were "hardcore terrorists" and were wanted in several terrorist-related cases, noted the Court. They successfully broke open the lock of the cells by firing gunshots and escaped.
The Court was seized of the batch of five petitions, filed by several jail authorities challenging their dismissal order after the incident, including the Superintendent of Jail.
After the jailbreak incident, these authorities were dismissed from service by invoking provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the dismissal order had been passed in violation of Article 166 of the Constitution, as the order does not mention the power being exercised in the name of the Governor.
Rejecting the petitioner's argument that the order should have been passed by the Governor, referring to Rule 9 (1) of the Rules of Business, the Court said the rule empowers the officer, who is the Appointing Authority, "to act on behalf of the Governor and signatures so made shall be deemed to be of proper authentication of such order or instrument."
Once the Governor has empowered under the Rules of Business, the concerned official to pass orders on his behalf, presumption shall be drawn that an order is duly signed by a competent person in terms of Rules of Business, would be an order passed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the Governor, it added.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that given the facts and circumstances of the case the departmental inquiry case can be dispensed with.
"This Court is of the firm view that as and when there is any allegation against an individual he has a right to defend. The principle of natural justice demands that he should be given an opportunity of hearing before passing of an order. The said principles of natural justice have been incorporated firmly in the Rules relating to conduct of departmental enquiry for imposing any of the major penalties as provided under the Rules," it said.
However, there may be circumstances where the allegations on the face of it are so proven that no further enquiry relating to the facts needs to be conducted. Such enquiry which is merely an eye wash can be dispensed with, the Court added.
Reliance was placed upon Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank and others [2009 (2) Supreme Court Cases 570], wherein the Supreme Court was examining how the departmental proceedings should be conducted and "it was held that documentary and ocular evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses but where the disciplinary authority has noticed that there is no possible witnesses to prove the allegations as the concerned inmates had already escaped and the other persons who were involved in the incident were facing criminal case against them, reaching to the conclusion that departmental enquiry is impracticable cannot be said to be a decision taken without application of mind."
The Court also addressed the counsel's submission on the gravity of punishment awarded to the petitioners, Referring to Union of India vs Subrata Nath [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998], it said, "it has been held that the High Court cannot direct reconsidering of any punishment already imposed by the disciplinary authority where there is prima facie guilt of great delinquency on the part of the delinquent."
In light of the above, all the petitions were dismissed stating that, "In view of the aforesaid findings, the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondents does not warrant any interference".
Appearance: Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by S.S.Rana,Arvind Kumar Sharma, . Arshdeep and Sunder Kumari Advocates, for the petitioner in CWP-6052-2017.
A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners in the remaining four writ petitions.
R.K. Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Case Title: Paramjit Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others and other connected matters.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 272