S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. - (1.) THE true import of the constitutional finality accorded by Clause (3) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, to the decision of the empowered authority, with regard to the reasonable practicability of holding an enquiry or otherwise is the primarily significant question which falls for determination in this case. The issue arises in the wake of the widespread police (sic) in the State of Punjab in May 1979, which later spilled over and engulfed the other parts of the country as well.
(2.) AT the out -set it may be mentioned that this writ petition was originally presented jointly on behalf of as many as 31 police constables. However, the maintainability of the joint petition could not be sustained and by our detailed order dated September 14, 1979, the writ petition stands confined to only Jagdev Singh, Petitioner (formerly Petitioner No. 15). It has been averred on behalf of the Petitioner that he has been working as a constable in the police Force with a satisfactory record. It is admitted that there has been an agitation by police officials in the various parts of the State of Punjab and at the material time he was posted at Ludhiana, though it is sought to be denied that the Petitioner ever participated either actively or otherwise in the said agitation. However, - -vide Annexure P/15, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Punjab Police Rules 16.1(2) read with Clause (b) of the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, has dismissed the Petitioner from service with immediate effect, whilst expressly holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry against him. The impugned order also details specifically six acts of misconduct enumerated therein of which the Petitioner was guilty. It is alleged that the impugned order indicates no application of mind by the dismissing authority and the six charges of mis -conduct enumerated therein were vague and lacked necessary details. This apart, it is claimed that these charges are false and the Petitioner did not participate in any agitation and all the allegations in the impugned order have been concocted. The impugned order of dismissal is first sought to be challenged on the ground that no reasons have been recorded specifically therein and that it has only been mentioned there that these reasons have been separately recorded by Respondent No. 2, It is claimed that in view of the constitutional and statutory provisions, the Petitioner is entitled to know all the reasons in the selfsame dismissal order and as these have not been mentioned in the impugned order itself, the same is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground. In this context it is also the case that the Petitioner had met Respondent No. 2 and requested that the reasons recorded by him, for not holding an enquiry be communicated to him, but this was not done and specifically he was told that the reasons could not be supplied.
(3.) IT has been averred that there was no material before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Respondent No. 2, on the basis of which he could be satisfied that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry against the Petitioner. Whilst admitting that the sufficiency of material cannot be questioned, it is reiterated that there was absolutely no material and no reason whatsoever with Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which he could pass the impugned order of dismissal. Though the basic stand of the Petitioner was that he had never participated in any agitation, it is submitted in the alternative that even if it be assumed that he did do so, he was nevertheless within his rights of forming an association and peacefully agitating for the betterment of his conditions of service and was, therefore, protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.;