Commissioner Of Police & ORS. v. Tejveer Singh

$~58 to 61 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 521/2023, CM APPLs. 2097/2023 & 2099/2023 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sahaj Garg, Sr. PC with SI Mukundan versus TEJVEER SINGH .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.

Prerna Tandon, Mr. Mayank Tiwari and Mr.

Harshit Gahlot, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 10755/2023, CM APPL. 41677/2023 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr.

Amit Gupta, Mr.

Vidur Dwivedi, Mr. Karan Rawal, Advs. with ASI Upender (North East Disstt.) versus MANOJ SHARMA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Ms.

Sakshi Jha, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4218/2023, CM APPLs. 16357/2023, 21322/2024 & 21323/2024 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Vinay Yadav, Sr. PC with Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Adv.

versus

EX CONST JAGVIR SINGH .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. M.C.

Sharma, Mr.

Saurabh Goel, Mr. Karsan Chaudhary, Mr. Tushar Ahuja and Mr. R.N.

Jindal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 4764/2023, CM APPL. 18367/2023 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. R.Venkat, Sr. PC with Mr.

Abhinav M. Goel, Adv.

versus EX CONST CHANDER HAS .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Adv. for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R (ORAL) % 01.10.2024 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1.

In all these petitions, the concerned respondents were dismissed from service without holding an inquiry by invoking the provisions of clause (b) of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 2.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that this issue is squarely covered against the petitioners by several decisions of this

Court including Commissioner of Police v Karam Pal1, Commissioner of Police v Kapil2 (which stands upheld by the Supreme Court) and Commissioner of Police v Jagmal Singh3 (which also stands upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP filed there against) which hold, in similar circumstances, invocation of clause (b) of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution to be unsustainable in law. 3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners is also candid in acknowledging that these judgments cover the case in the respondents' favour.

4.

Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal in these petitions are upheld. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

OCTOBER 1, 2024/aky Click here to check corrigendum, if any 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4906 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2867 3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2024