DARSHAN JIT SINGH DHINDSA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of petitioner Darshan Jit Singh Dhindsa were terminated on 9.7.1986, inter alia, on the ground that he is unsuitable to be retained in service in the interest of the disciplined force and security of the State/Country, general law and administration as he had links with the extremists while posted as Station House Officer, Oadian. No enquiry was held against him. The provisions of Art. 311(i)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Police Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules were invoked to dispense with the enquiry by observing that since terrorists or their supporters may not cause bodily harm to the Enquiry Officer or the prosecution witnesses, consequently no enquiry is feasible

(2.) The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal from service, inter alia, on the grounds : (i) That there was no material on the record on the basis of which Appointing Authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, could have subjectively formed an opinion or could have derived satisfaction that holding of an enquiry is not practicable, (ii) The order of dismissal has been passed by the competent authority for extraneous consideration i.e. the order was passed on the direction of the Director General of Police, Punjab, (iii) The Senior Superintendent of Police was not competent to dismiss as the petitioner was promoted by the Deputy Inspector General, (iv) The orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as of the Revisional Authority are not speaking orders, (v) The Punishing Authority did not apply his mind independently as would be obvious from the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, whereby he held that there was no material on the record to detain the petitioner under the National Security Act as recommended by the Director General of Police.

(3.) Lastly, it was claimed that the punishment awarded was not commensurate with the offence attributed to the petitioner; his past record was not taken into consideration; no charge-sheet was served upon him nor explanation called for, much less holding of an enquiry. Thus, the impugned order of his dismissal is liable to be set aside. In order to support his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1991(1) SCT 125 : JT 1990(4) SC 554 ; Ram Karan Vs. Union of India and others, 1975(2) SLR 683; Atam Parkash Mohan son of Shri Vir Bhan and others Vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, through its Registrar and others, 1970 SLR 16; Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16; Bachabhai Ramsinhji Vs. Shri Shivlal, IPS 1971 SLR 588, Ikramuddin Ahmed Borah Vs. Superintendent of Police Darrang AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2245 and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 1990(2) RSJ 209.