Prabhjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS


 
  

  !


   

 

 



        

 !"

#$%&' ()*+ '(+"''*",)  !  -. /0      , /1./ 



 "  #  *

 2  1 

1345  

 -



  2

    6

7358
92: 

 ;

2  : 1 

 <=8
390 2



1 1: 

 ;



/2   : 

  2

  ; ; /





 ;

/ 11

6 1   +   /  

2  2

 1



==75* 2



>+#<335

    #   1

   *

-    2   

  0

  *  2  

 ;

 2  1

  1 :  ?8989 

 2 13  1

1 /=?<  5  1

/=3:735* 


 >+  2

 1111

1011

 ;: <37



/  

1  +

. 1 1



7352:

 2 

/ 20/  ; 2 

 * /  

1  . 1  1

/  



  

;

/ 2

 2

0 <=  

12  1  0

  /

 2  1 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR No.46 dated 01.06.2017 and on mere registration of the FIR, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The fact that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR is borne out from the fact that the petitioner was discharged by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar vide order dated 04.06.2018, which has attained finality as the same has not been challenged. It is also argued that the order of dismissal without holding any departmental enquiry by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India is wholly unsustainable as there is no ground mentioned in the said order as to why departmental inquiry could not have been initiated. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgments in Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398; $%& '$'('()'*+%$),) -'-% ,(.'/'(0 -1%$)

22
234,$51'$'( 6(71+%$),) -'-% ,(.'/

8 
8 4
28

8-6-*%0'9%)1",&'$+%$),) -'-% ,(.'/'(0-1%$)0%560%0( :2

4
 2

-6-*%0 69$'&.6- '(0 '(-1%$ +%$),) -'-%   ,(.'/ '(0 -1%$) 0%560%0 (

4
 328 :-6-*%0
()-'/*%'$6(0%$",&'$+%$),)

?


-'-% ,(.'/'(0'(-1%$0%560%0( 2

 4Smt. Surinder Kaur wd/o Sh. Labh Singh Vs. State of Punjab through DGP, Chandigarh 2008

(1) SCT 396, Ex. Constable Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2003 (2) SCT 137, Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others 2015 (1) SCT 87, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others Vs. Pardeep Kumar and other passed in CWP No.3532 of 2013 on 24.02.2016 to contend that provisions of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India have to be invoked under very stringent circumstances and the order must contain reasons as to why it is not possible to hold a departmental inquiry.

< & 

1 



   1     


 21 ;

 

 ;





>+#<335  / 

12  1:

   

1 ? 89 89   

   +   +

 1 

;

    

   1      

  21 1   = 1 01

 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the case. The facts are not in dispute to the extent that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1987. He was nominated as an accused along with Balwinder Singh @ Babba under FIR No.46 dated 01.06.2017 registered at Police Station Tariska, Amritsar Rural with the allegation of being found in possession of 5 grams of heroin. Based upon registration of the FIR, the petitioner was dismissed from service by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules while holding that it would not be appropriate to

<
 conduct departmental proceedings against him. The reasons given in the order dated 08.06.2017 dismissing the service of the petitioner are that: (i) none of the official witnesses would depose against the petitioner because he has connections with dangerous and anti-social elements; (ii) life of the enquiry officer would be endangered and (iii) it would take a long time to conduct the departmental enquiry. The reasoning as given for dispensing with service of the petitioner by invoking Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India is wholly unjustified, keeping in view the fact that Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before it that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry 

1 ? 89 89   

=<= !

"




   

 

 



 





    

       



 



 

    



 

        

 

   

 

                  

     

  

  

  



 !    

       






 

 

  

  

     



"



 

  

   

  

 

    

  

  

 



      "

@





  

#

 

      





 

$ 

    

3   

    

1 1  21 2    : 2



 ;

2  

  ;0        

  - 1

 1

:/  

2

  2:

 1: 

11  

:+  (6(  (06' +) ,*)6 '& '-%*4 3:  ,;;*
  /  " $1  ;  0 1 89  0



1?  



0- 1:2  :



 ; ; 1   ;

 1: 

11 1

:10  0



  !
%&        

   

        

    

  

  

   

           

'

 (   



 



  % 5 

   >+21  

 

0- 

1?8989 



2 1

  1

:   

  1

6  ;

1: +   

/



1   



1 ?8989 

 

0/6

0    0

     

1    2:  21    1: 

1  1   1

: + 
()-'/*% '$6(0%$",&'$<)5')% ,;$'41

6 2

 ;



  2>+ /   <+    @;

/=@=2 1

 : 1

:

3
          1

6  2  1: 

1   ; 1 1

2-

 211 

1

 /  2  

1

  +2 1;

   >+

 01     

 2  1

  1

: 

1 0 2     -

     $%& '$'( '()'* '(0 ,$51'$'( 6(71<)5')%) ,;$' 7

 1        

1/

 

    

2 00   2 2:



1 1

:; 0 A 

     

  

    "      

   

    

     )   

     



   21  

:  



 

 1B 1  2:

:

1 

 ;

1:/

11:

0 2    

0 <37

 :  (/ 

/ ; / 2

  ;    -



  :  

11  : 2 1 

 

1   = *  0

2  ; 

  1  

-



 ;; /    1 

 2  ;       

1+  2  



 ;/ 21 0



- 

  +

1  

    

 :   

  >+    89 # :(/

/; +

 22 ;  

  2



 1

5
 -





 2  0:   ; ;  2 

      2    : 1

2   ;

 ;1: %12

 

 C %  * 

1 1 : 

 

     

1     

   0 -



 :  13?   1

1

 2  1



/2   :

/ 11  

 11:

;     0



/2 11:1 /  B

0+ 

 / 2

 ;

:

0-



1 ?8989 

 1:  

;



   >+

/

 0  1-



  

        



 11  :   1 / 

0 -



  

6 1:/    735   <=  

  ;

  :



  

 : -





   ;

 :  (/ 

/ ;    2    1  :/  6  1 ;/2 

   ;   ;  :

  *2 

 

0;



 "    5-/%$ 4

 -D E

-

4  F 4# E 1 F 4#