http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MOHINDER SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1997

BENCH:

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.

The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police in the

service of the Administration of the Union territory of

Chandigarh, has been dismissed from service by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The

Senior Superintendent of Police dispensed with the enquiry

invoking proviso (b) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the

Constitution of India and made the order of dismissal on 5th

July, 1991. An appeal preferred by the respondent was

dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 30th

September, 1991 whereupon the respondent approached the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal

found, following its earlier order dated June 2, 1995 in

O.A.No.232/ch/94 [Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh

Administration], that the ground upon which the Senior

Superintendent has dispensed with the enquiry is not

sustainable in law. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the

order of dismissal and the appellate order and directed the

administration to reinstate the respondent with all

attendant benefits.

The order of dismissal reads as follows:

"O R D E R

Whereas SI Mohinder Singh

No.CHG/1 was holding the post of

Sub Inspector in the Police

Department, Union Territory,

Chandigarh.

It was brought to my notice

that he indulged in gross misuse of

official power and attempted to

extort money from an innocent

victim after illegally detaining

and torturing him in the Police

Station, which amounts to grave

misconduct on the part of a Police

Officer.

Shri Baldev Singh,

Superintendent of Police,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh, has

also conducted an enquiry against

him for his aforesaid nefarious

activities and misdeeds and has

submitted a report which proves the

misconduct of I Mohinder Singh

NO.CHG/1.

From the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am

satisfied that he has indulged in

gross misuse of official power.

And further, I, Sumedh Singh

Saini, Senior Superintendent of

Police, Union Territory,

Chandigarh, after considering all

the facts and circumstances of the

case, am satisfied under sub clause

(b) of the proviso to sub-section

(2) of Article 311 of the

Constitution of India, that it is

not reasonably practicable to hold

an enquiry against SI Mohinder

Singh No.CHG/1 for the reasons that

the witnesses cannot come forward

freely to depose against him in a

regular departmental enquiry.

Now, therefore, I, Sumedh

Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent

of Police, Union Territory

Chandigarh, appointing authority of

SI Mohinder Singh No.CHG/1, hereby

dismiss him from Government service

with immediate effect.

sd/-

Senior Superintendent of Police

UT, Chandigarh

SI Mohinder Singh, No.CHG/1,

PS North, Chandigarh."

The order of dismissal refers to and is based upon the

report of Sri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police,

Intelligence, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is, therefore,

necessary to notice the main features of the said Report.

The Report says that the respondent arrested one Ranjit

Singh from his house at about 11.45 P.M. on the night

intervening 3rd/4th July, 1991 along with two friends of

Ranjit Singh who happened to be in his house at that time,

brought Ranjit Singh to the police station and tortured him

mercilessly on the plea that he was harbouring terrorists.

It is reported that the respondent was in a drunken

condition at that time and that he was repeatedly asking

Ranjit Singh about the whereabouts of a particular

terrorist. The respondent also told Ranjit Singh that he was

torturing him at the instance of his superior officers. He

demanded a sum of Rupees sixty thousand from Ranjit Singh as

a condition for releasing him. Ultimately, a sum of Rupees

twenty thousand was paid to the respondent whereafter Ranjit

Singh was released. The Report submits that the ground on

which Ranjit Singh was arrested and tortured was wholly

baseless and that it was done with a view to extort money

from him. The last paragraph of the Report is relevant for

the present purposes and reads thus:

"I may mention that this SI is a

terror in the area and in a regular

departmental enquiry no policemen

or private man is likely to depose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

against him. In my presence he

intimidated the complainant, Shri

Ranjit Singh who appeared to be

visibly terrified of this Sub

Inspector. Also, the 3 guests of

Shri Ranjit Singh, who were also

victims of the harassment caused by

SI Mohinder Singh, left Chandigarh

immediately on being released as

they were terrified of the Sub

Inspector. Before going they told

Shri Ranjit Singh that they would

not testify against SI Mohinder

Singh because they were scared of

him. As such I am of the opinion

that no useful purpose would be

served by initiating any

departmental proceeding against him

and would recommend that stern

disciplinary action be taken

against him.

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police

Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh

Dt.5.7.91"

We are unable to understand the reasoning of the

Tribunal when it says that the reason given by Senior

Superintendent of Police is not sufficient reason for

dispensing with the enquiry under proviso (b) to Article 311

(2). The order of dismissal recites that "it is not

reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against SI

Mohinder Singh CHG/1 for the reason that the witnesses

cannot come forward freely to depose against him in a

regular departmental enquiry". Clauses (2) and (3) of

Article 311, insofar as, they are relevant read thus:

"311. Dismissal, removal or

reduction in rank of persons

employed in Civil capacities under

the Union or a State.--

(2) No such person as aforesaid

shall be dismissed or removed or

reduced in rank except after an

inquiry in which he has been

informed of the charges against him

and given a reasonable opportunity

of being heard in respect of those

charges.

Provided that where it is

proposed after such inquiry, to

impose upon him any such penalty,

such penalty may be imposed on the

basis of the evidence adduced

during such inquiry and it shall

not be necessary to give such

person any opportunity of making

representation on the penalty

proposed.

Provided further that this

clause shall not apply--

(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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

practicable to hold such inquiry;

or

(3) If, in respect of any such

person as aforesaid, a question

arises whether it is reasonably

practicable to hold such inquiry as

is referred to in clause (2), the

decision thereon of the authority

empowered to dismiss or remove such

person or to reduce him in rank

shall be final."

Clause (3) of Article 311, it may be noticed, declares

that where a question arises whether it is reasonably

practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause

(2), the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such

person shall be final on that question. The Tribunal has not

referred to clause (3) at all in its order. We are not

suggesting that because of clause (3), the court or the

Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor are we

suggesting that in every case the court should blindly

accept that recital in terms of the said proviso contained

in the order of dismissal. Be that as it may, without going

into the question of extent and scope of judicial review in

such a matter, we may look to the facts of this case. The

Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, has reported that

the respondent "is a terror in the area" and, more

important, in his very presence, the respondent "intimidated

the complainant Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly

terrified of this Sub Inspector". It is also reported that

the other persons who were arrested with Ranjit Singh, and

who were present there, immediately left his office

terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such

a situation - and keeping in view that all this was

happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the

Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not

justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable

to hold an inquiry against the respondent.

Sri M.L. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent,

submitted that a similar allegation was made against the

Inspector of Police [superior of the respondent] but that in

his case, proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) was not invoked. We

have seen the Report against the Inspector. We find that the

allegation against him is entirely different. Above all,

there is no allegation that the Inspector held out any

threat to Ranjit Singh in the present of the Superintendent

of Police or any other superior officer. The said plea has

no substance whatsoever.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of

the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.