AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, a police constable, was dismissed from service by Govt. Order No. Home144/PSA of 1993 dated 2.4.1993 passed by the
Governor in exercise of the powers under Sec. 126(2)(c) of the State Constitution. He assails this order but advances a curious thesis which
makes no sense at all. According to him, he had gone to see his brother at Hari Niwas and thereafter when he reported for duty he was told that
his services were terminated.
Petitioner's case is that he was dismissed from service without any inquiry which could not be done because he was neither found guilty by any
court of law for any alleged activity prejudicial to the security of the State nor had he indulged in any such activity. It is submitted by him that the
impugned order was bad as it was not speaking one and as no grounds were disclosed in this for reaching the requisite satisfaction. It is also
alleged that the action taken against him was mala fide and whimsical and that the respondents had not discharged the obligation cast on them
under Sec. 126 of the State Constitution because respondent No.1 was required under law to peruse the material relevant to the cases and
consider the entirety of allegations against him which was not done in the present case. Lastly, it is urged that the impugned order was violative of
the principles of natural justice.
In the reply filed by the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner had been indulging in gross indiscipline and had organised an armed revolt
along with his associates in April 1993 and had incited the people to join it. He had also participated in processions, Dharnas and holding of the
high ranking police officers as hostages for some days. So much so that army had to be called out to disarm him and his associates. As such
respondents had not committed any error in removinghim from service keeping in view the ""magnitude of his activities"". Lastly, it is pointed out that
no reasons were required to be given for the impugned action and that such reasons find place in the intelligence reports submitted to the Governor
on which satisfaction was drawn by him.
The case of both parties makes no head and tail. Both petitioner and respondents have strayed into irrelevance missing the crux of the matter in
the process. On his part, petitioner has also made averments in his writ petition in generalised terms without specifically alleging that the satisfaction
reached by the Governor for discarding the inquiry lacked in basis. On the contrary, he had dished out a cock and bull story and had indulged in
hyperbole.
The respondents have matched the petitioner in equal measure through their reply. They seem to have concentrated more on the nature and
gravity of his alleged activities rather than indicating the circumstances which had made it inexpedient for the Governor to hold the inquiry.
It is well settled that the gravity of the activities of the delinquent do not furnish a justification for taking away the constitutional guarantee of
inquiry for removing him from service. The severity or the gravity of the allegations against him may warrant his removal from service. But, all that
becomes important is whether the constitutional safeguard of an inquiry against him could be taken away merely because of the seriousness of the
allegations against him.
It is no more res integra that the gravity and the seriousness of the allegations do not furnish basis for doing away with the constitutional
guarantee of inquiry. A delinquent employee may be accused of a most henious of the offence or the nature of his activities may be grave or serious
warranting the extreme punishment against him, but, that by itself does not constitute the basis for dispensing with the inquiry which can be done
only where circumstances suggest that it would be either impracticable to hold it for the given reasons or inexpedient to hold it in the interests of the
security of the State. It is also well established that the interests of the security of the State are distinct and different from the magnitude of a law
and order situation or the proportions of a public order situation. But the interests of the security of the State may be affected even when the law
and order situation or the public order situation may be good.
The Supreme Court also dealth with a serious situation that had arisen out of the agitation lauched by the CISF Unit at Bakaro Stell Plant in
Tulsi Ram Patel's case (AIR 1985 SC 1416). But, it ruled that even, in such cases when army had to be called to quell an armed rebellion, the
dismissed rebels could still seek judicial review of the action. This position was reiterated in Satya Vir Singh's case (AIR 1986 SC 535).
Viewed thus, both the petitioner and respondents had failed in making out their respective cases. As notices elsewhere, while the petitioner had
failed to specifically allege that the Governor had no basis for discarding' the inquiry, respondents had equally missed to disclose the circumstances
that had rendered it inexpedient to hold the inquiry against the petitioner. As it is and if the matter was to be decided on a technical approach, the
writ petition was liable to be dismissed straightaway. But, I find support from the judgement Constitution of India brother Bhawani Singh. J (as he
then was) in identical writ petitions (SWP 145/90 etc. etc.) and reiterate the directions passed by His Lordship to dispose of this petition on the
same analogy to meet the ends of justice:
Government Order No. Home144/ PSA of 1 993 dated 2.4. 1 993 is hereby quashed. But, the disciplinary authority may start departmental
proceedings against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and conclude these within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Failure to take such proceedings would entitle the petitioner to reinstatement in service on the expiry of the prescribed period or any extension
granted therein by the Court. In that event it shall be open to the Competent Authority again to place him under suspicion and to lauch inquiry
against him, if desired. But, should he succeed in the inquiry, he shall be reinstated in service without' any back wages. And, if the charges are
brought home to him in such inquiry, he shall be liable to any action including his removal from service.