Terrorism In Punjab Was At Its Peak In 1980s, Dispensing Enquiry Against Cop With Alleged Ties To Militants Was Fair Since No Witnesses Would Come Forward: HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that it was just and fair to dismiss a constable allegedly having links with militants in 1988, without conducting an enquiry because terrorism was at its peak in Punjab at that time and no witnesses would have come forward.

The Court set aside the order of a Trial Court whereby it set aside the order of the Police Authorities to dismiss a Constable allegedly having ties with militants in 1988 by invoking the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Justice Namit Kumar said, "At the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in the Punjab State, therefore, impugned order rendered by the concerned authority for dispensation of regular enquiry was just and proper as no witness would have come forward to depose against the respondent-plaintiff."

Facts In Brief 

In 1981, Constable Dalbir Singh who was posted in Jalandhar Cantt. was dismissed from service without holding any enquiry against him, for allegedly having links with militants in Punjab.

Singh filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that he joined the Punjab Police Department as a Constable on 07.11.1979 and that before passing the said order, neither any charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted by the defendants.

The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that an order passed by the competent authority dispensing with the requirement of holding a departmental inquiry was not appropriate.

Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Punjab Government preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 29.08.1992. The present plea was filed in 1992, and was a second appeal preferred against the order of the lower Appellate Court.

State counsel contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the respondent was associated with extremists and their unlawful activities in Punjab and holding of departmental inquiry against the respondent was not reasonably practicable, therefore, the punishing authority invoked the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

Senior counsel for the respondent contended that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were perfectly legal and valid. He contended that the order of the appellants dispensing with the inquiry is wholly laconic and is not germane to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India as the satisfaction recorded in the order of dismissal was not supported by any independent material to justify the dispensing with the enquiry

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "during the pendency of the present appeal, the State of Punjab filed an application for permission to bring on record the additional evidence to support the satisfaction recorded by the Department, which was allowed."

Perusing the records, the Court opined that, "there was sufficient material with the Department that respondent was involved in unlawful activities and had links with extremists in the State of Punjab, therefore, it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry against him nor any witness could be associated in the enquiry, therefore, on the basis of above documents, the order of his dismissal was rightly passed by dispensing with the departmental enquiry."

Justice Kumar highlighted that Singh was dismissed for having contacts with terrorists and at the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in the State of Punjab, therefore, there were sufficient grounds for dispensation of regular departmental inquiry against the respondent as no witness would have come forward to depose against the respondent-plaintiff.

 "The departmental inquiry would have taken a long time and keeping him in service till its completion, during those days could have been harmful/risky and not in public interest. Hence, it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry in this case," the Court added.

Stating that the subjective satisfaction recorded in the dismissal order stands verified by way of the additional evidence brought on record, the Court allowed the appeal.

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab assisted by Dr. Sheeta Singh, DSP.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Aman Raj Bawa, Advocate, and Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

Title: State of Punjab and others v. Dalbir Singh through his LRs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 234

Click here to read/download the order