SWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners which shows the lack of interest on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners to assist the Court. However, this failure of the learned counsel to discharge his moral obligation towards bis client is no ground to refrain the Court from adjudicating the writ petition on merits.

(2.) The petitioncrs were recruited as Constables in the Punjab Police in the year 1985-86. The petitioners have pleaded that their record is quite satisfactory. In July, 1988, petitioner No.1 was given Special Prize Certificate with Rs.150/-. After the incident which took place on 19.9.1988 at the Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, in which some officers and policemen were killed, the petitioners were detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioners were branded as dangerous and desperate persons. However, after their cases were reviewed by the Advisory Board and it was found that there was no sufficient ground to detain the petitioners, the order of their detention was revoked and the petitioners were released on 16.3.1989. In the meantime, the petitioners were dismissed from service vide order dated 13.9.1980 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala (A). Alter then- release from jail, the petitioners made representation for their reinstatement and when they realised the futility of their attempt to invoke a sympathetic response from the respondents, the petitioners have sought Court's intervention for their reinstatement and for grant of consequential benefits. The main ground on which the petitioners have challenged the order of dismissal is that the disciplinary authority has acted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice because no inquiry was held by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, before dismissing them from service and thus, they were deprived of the opportunity of defence. Further, case of the petitioners is thai there is no material available with the respondents on the basis of which it can be said that holding of inquiry against them was not reasonably practicable.

(3.) The respondents have defended the impugned order of dismissal of services of the petitioners on the ground that the decision taken by the competent authority under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is beyond the power of judicial review. They have further submitted that on receipt of secret information/source reports emanating from Hon'ble the Advisor to the Governor of Punjab, Iaspector CIA, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Patiala, that ASI Dalbir Singh and the petitioners were indulging in various activities prejudicial to the public interest, ASI Dalbir Singh and his staff were called for inquiry and while the inquiries were going on, ASI Dalbir Singh shot at the Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala. ASI Dalbir Singh also received bullet injury and all the three persons died and this shows that the petitioners were dangerous for the people in general and also security hazard for the Police Department and, therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police passed the order of their dismissal from service. According to the respondents, release of the petitioners from detention has no nexus with the activities in which the petitioners were involved and, therefore, the competent authority was justified in taking the view that it was a fit case in which the petitioners should be dismissed without any inquiry.