Lakhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Other
!"#"$" %"" ""$ " &'(
$)$**+ ,
,
-./0*12*3/ 4**1 516 2)678/1 4 9 */ :'
20*12*3/ 4**1 516 2)678/1 4 9 " ;
*/2*3/ 4**1 516 2)678/1 4 9 "<+ =#-< ,!
2!"
< "#"2"-
! " ### !"
< "#"2"->!
$
%
"" "
& ' " " CWP59472025 (
) * ((+,((- . /'** 0 ,
1 2 3 4- (4(6
1 + " 7 )) 2 " " %6 (4%8 (6 4- (4(5 " " 4( 4% (4(2
1 - " ! " " "
) " & ."
%2 %899 &" : %6 (4%8
1 % " '* .
"
5%% ( . / ;CWP No.14107 of 2020". "
%% 4% (4(5
1 5
) 0 ) 1%% 4% (4(5 "
' "The impugned order when tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the reasons recorded by the Authority in dispensing with the inquiry fall short. In fact there is no reason recorded by the Authority to justify dispensing with the inquiry. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Authority cannot dispense with the inquiry arbitrarily. Mere reproduction of the statutory expression cannot have an effect of dispensing with the Constitutional obligation casted upon the authority to give cogent reason for dispensing with the inquiry. The Competent Authority was not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly as has been done in the present case. It was required to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and apply its mind which is found to be missing in the impugned order. No material has been placed on record to justify the casual approach or to back the satisfaction of the authority to dispense with the inquiry.
I may hastenly add here that this Court while entertaining the present writ petition has deliberately not ventured into the merits and facts of the case. The impugned order has been tested merely on the touchstone of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Resultantly, the present writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 14.09.2019 annexed with the present writ petition along with subsequent orders thereto are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents as stated herein above."
<0 $ *
* )
** * ** * * ** ' )
"
)
"<0 $ *
/ * * )
"* +
= " <0 $ * ) " *
) <0 $
*> * )
*
" -
/* "
) * * <0 $ )"
'*
" "
7 1*
((+,((-. / *
) . ' 0 ,
* / ;* . 1* ((+ . / '
" / <0 $
" " "
. ?
*7 .
?,
*
((+. / * * $* " 0 "
* 0
0 '** )7 .
* ?
* *
?, !
" ) 1 * "18. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus : "12. Despite the wellsettled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
; disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13.
Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 21.
To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.
However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to reconsider the penalty imposed.
: should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefore." %4
) 7 . * ;* . 1 " * " ). ;*. 0 0 .
* . ' 0 %%
7 .
* . # $ !% & ' !
(') **
?
*
+ ,+ '
, (# % , , ,
% -!
.
/+ )) ** ((+. / ;* . 1
)"
/ * "
"" / " "
"
" )"
) " 3 /*
* "
* ;* . 1*1 * " " / 1* 1"
"
@0 );*.
" * 0 "
11
;*. %(
" * " "
<
" "
1
1 " 1 . )"
*
0 ** " " * ) " . 1*
. ) *" . )"
" 0 * "" "
* " / * * " )" " ** )"
"
"
** 7 *"
"* ""
/ ** " * " )" "
* * * ")"
0 ** )0 " * 1
)"
"*". / ;*. ((+ " * 1 %5
& *" * ** ) " 7 " / 7* ; " " " **
/ ; )
" ) " "
) * " <0 $ " "I have carefully perused the original order appended with the file of departmental inquiry; gist of charges; statements of witnesses to complaint; charge sheet; and statements of defence witnesses produced by delinquent ASI/LR Lakhwinder Singh no. 1770/T.T. and statement in defence made by the delinquent himself. From appraisal thereof, it has been ascertained that on dated 13.09.2019 delinquent ASI/LR Lakhwinder Singh No. 1770/T.T.; Const. Kuldeep Singh no. 768/T.T.; ASI/LR Sawinder Singh No.
736/T.T. and Const. Nishan Singh No. 546/T.T. accompanied Incharge of their police party, namely, Baldev Singh No. 843/T.T. to village Chogawan, Police Station Lopoke for conducting raid on the houses of accused persons booked in F.I.R. No. 64/19 Police Station Kacha Pucca, namely, Jugraj Singh son of Kuldeep Singh and Amandeep Singh son of Sajatar Singh, resident of Chogawan, Police Station Lopoke. At that time, family members of aforesaid accused persons had given brutal bearings to S.I. Baldev Singh No. 843/T.T., Incharge of Police party went for conducting road, but, at that time, delinquent A.S.I./L.R. Lakhwinder Singh no. 1770/T.T. did not make any endeavour to get his Incharge freed, rather, kept on watching the show by becoming a mute spectator.
During inquiry, on watching the vide went viral on You Tube it has been ascertained by me that delinquent ASI/LR Lakhwinder Singh no. 1770/T.T. was visualized to be wandering on the spot in relax mood, whereas, it was obligatory on his part that he should have provided assistance to his Incharge S.I. Baldev Singh no. 843/T.T. on the spot and should have resisted family members of accused persons, but, he has not done so. Because of such negligence on his part, Shri Dhrub Dahiya, I.P.S., the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, being competent authority for recording dismissal, vide his office order no. 271116/P.S. dated 14.09.2019, respectively had dismissed the delinquent ASI/LR Lakhwinder Singh no. 1770/T.T. from the government service of police department with immediate effect under Punjab Police Rules 16.
1 Read with section 7 of Police Act, 1961 and Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution of India. As per statements of witness to complaint, namely, Head Munshi, Police lines, Tarn Taran, dismissal period of delinquent ASI/LR Lakhwinder Singh no. 1770/T.T. from the service of police department comes to be about 1471 days.
no. 1770/T.T. and statement in defence made by the delinquent himself and after making consideration thereupon, I have arrived at a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the departmental inquiry initiated against L.R./ASI Lakhwinder Singh No. 1770/T.Τ. stand duly proved and inclusion of his dismissal period of about 1471 days into without duty without pay is made out."
%6
) <0 $
1 ) * ) "
* ). * * %2
/'" *. "*" "* &!"
< "#"2"-( !
$
,
,
Mohit Kumar A'*, B,C A"
B,C