HC upholds Punjab govt decision of sacking cop without probe
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the decision of the Punjab government to dismiss a cop from service without a departmental inquiry in 1981.
1981 case
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the decision of the Punjab government to dismiss a cop from service without a departmental inquiry in 1981.
“At the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in the Punjab State, therefore, impugned order rendered by the authority concerned for dispensation of regular inquiry was just and proper as no witness would have come forward to depose against the respondent (cop),” the bench of justice Namit Gupta observed while quashing the 1992 judgment of a Jalandhar court.
The cop, Dalbir Singh, had joined the police force in 1979. However, in January 1988, he was dismissed from the service on allegations of terror links. Singh’s plea before the trial court was that neither chargesheet was issued nor any inquiry was held, and he was also not afforded an opportunity of hearing before dismissal order was passed. Hence, he had demanded that the government action be set aside.
He appealed against the decision and won from the trial court in September 1991. The government filed an appeal against the same before the appellate court, which was dismissed in 1992. It was against this order that the government had filed an appeal before the high court in 1993.
The government argument was that he could not be associated with the probe as he had links with extremists and their unlawful activities in Punjab and holding of departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable. Therefore, the punishing authority invoked the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constititon read with Rules 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934, and he was removed from the force. His whereabouts are still not known, and his case was fought by his legal heirs before the high court.
Taking note of record produced which contained secret reports about his activities, the court said that dismissal was based on having his contact with terrorists. “This court is of the opinion that at the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in Punjab, therefore, there were sufficient grounds for dispensation of regular departmental probe against the respondent. 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 the public interest. Hence it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry in this case,” the bench recorded.
It further observed that holding a departmental inquiry under the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 might be mandatorily
adhered to. However, the same is not applicable to the cases where no departmental inquiry is to be held. Rule 16.38 says concurrence of the district magistrate for holding the departmental inquiry is a must.
In the present case, departmental inquiry was dispensed with as the same was not practicable, it said, adding that Rule 16.38 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
It said that concurrence of the district magistrate for holding the departmental inquiry is needed where commission of criminal offence in connection with the official’s relation with the public of the appellant is prima facie established. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no requirement of concurrence of the district magistrate, it added.