CWP NO.80 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 10.3.2009 Mohinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORUM HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Yadvindra Sharma, DAG, Punjab PERMOD KOHLI,J. Order dated 14.7.1987 (Annexure P-3) dismissing the petitioner from service by dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry being not reasonably practicable has been questioned in the present writ petition. Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Constable in the year 1955 and after earning promotions, he was promoted as Sub Inspector in the year 1986. He was posted in Police Lines, Kapurthala where from he was transferred to the police post Circuit House, Amritsar on 13.5.1987 where he joined on 14.5.1987. After about two months, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing him from service. The impugned order reads as under:- “Whereas S.I.Mohinder Singh No.224/J posted as Incharge, Police Post Circuit House, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar CWP NO.80 of 1989 2 has been reported to be mixed up with the extremists and had leaked out information of raid to some hardcore extremists and whereas after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that regular Departmental Inquiry as envisaged by PFR 16.24 is not reasonably practicable because witnesses are not likely to expose due to fear of injury to their lives. And whereas in the interest of maintenance of law and order and public interest retention of aforesaid S.I. Mohinder Singh No.224/J is considered un-desirable. I have also considered the length of service of this SI and right of pension under PFR 16.2. Now therefore, I, Mohd. Izhar Alam I.P.S. Sr.Superintendent of Police, Amritsar in exercise of the powers vested in me by virtue of the provision of PFR 16.1 read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Article 411 (2) of the Constitution of India do hereby dismiss from service S.I. Mohinder Singh No.224/J with effect from today the 13th day of July, 1987 afternoon. Sd/-Sr.Superintendent of Police, Amritsar” An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid impugned order under Rule 16 (2) of Punjab Police Service Rules before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar (respondent no.2) came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.1987 (Annexure P-6). Two grounds have been raised in support of the relief claimed in the petition- CWP NO.80 of 1989 3 (1) that there is no valid ground to dispense with the enquiry as the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is not feasible and practicable; and (2) that both the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and the appellate order (Annexure P-6) are non-speaking and thus are liable to be set aside. I have perused both the orders (Annexures P-3 and P-6). The disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority have disclosed their mind for dismissing the petitioner from service, though elaborate reasons have not been recorded. I am of the considered view that once the authorities have applied their mind, non-recording of elaborate and detailed reasons cannot be construed to be a valid ground for quashing the order on that count. The plea of the petitioner in this regard is thus rejected. This takes me to examine the other ground of challenge. The disciplinary authority has mentioned that it is not practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry as witnesses will not be available to depose for fear of injury. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Tulsiram Patel and others AIR 1985 SC 1416 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “...70. Much as this may seem harsh and oppressive to a government servant, this Court must not forget that the object underlying the second proviso is public policy, public interest and public good and the Court must, therefore, repel the temptation to be carried away by feelings of commiseration and sympathy for those government servants who have been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying the second proviso. Sympathy and commiseration cannot be allowed to CWP NO.80 of 1989 4 outweigh considerations of public policy, concern for public interest, regard for public good and the preemptory dictate of a constitutional prohibition....” In the case of Satyavir Singh and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “(21)The second proviso to Art. 311(2) becomes applicable in the three cases mentioned in Cls. (a) to (c ) of that proviso, namely, (a)where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge: (b)where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; and (c )where the President or the Governor as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.” In the present case, the competent authority has specifically recorded that the witnesses are not likely to depose due to fear of injury to their lives. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that he is mixed up with extremists and leaked out the information to some hardcore criminals. The apprehension expressed by the authorities cannot be said to be baseless or without any reasonable and bone fide apprehension. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order conforms to the principles laid CWP NO.80 of 1989 5 down under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10 .3.2009 MFK NOTE: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES