- (1.) 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 Sigh 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 attendent benefits.
(2.) The order of dismissal reads as follows: "ORDER Whereas SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/I 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, 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 misdeeds and has submitted a report which proves the misconduct of SI Mohinder Singh No. CHG/I. 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.
(3.) The order of dismissal refers to and is based upon the report of Shri 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 wherabouts 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 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 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";