- (1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.19478 & 23706 of 2014 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions which arise out of the same incident which can conveniently be decided by a joint order.
(2.) The case goes like this. When the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana formed prima facie opinion that a departmental enquiry deserves to be initiated against the petitioners after placing them under suspension, it appears rather unjustified for the disciplinary authority to have suddenly departed there from, and then exercise his authority under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dismiss the petitioners from service. The petitioners were accused of raiding the farm house of one Jagdeep Singh where they found owner in possession of six bags of poppy husk. They are alleged to have taken away five bags and left one with Jagdeep Singh. It is alleged that both the petitioners accepted bribe of Rs.25,000/- from Jagdeep Singh after three days of the raid on the promise that they would help him in not taking any criminal action against the accused. They are accused of letting him off without handing the man over to the law. It has also come on record that FIR No.105 dated 10th September, 2013 was registered at Police Station Jodhan under Sections 15/27- A/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act and Section 7/13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioners and the co-accused Jagdeep Singh.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that extreme and excessive action was taken against the petitioners of dismissal from service after conducting a preliminary enquiry in which the confessional statements of Jagdeep Singh etc. were recorded and then to have taken recourse to Article 311 (2) (b). Despite the presence of such material enquiry should have been conducted to enable the petitioners to prove their innocence in disciplinary proceedings, in case they were instituted. Loss of such valuable opportunity was critical to the action of the punishing authority taking recourse to sledgehammer jurisdiction under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution which should be the last resort when it is prima facie established on opinion formed that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The present is not an extreme case of the kind where it would not be reasonably practicable to gather evidence in the surrounding circumstances an especially when admittedly the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana had taken a decision in the first instance to suspend the officials and institute a regular enquiry. He then should have steadfastly held the ground, ordered an enquiry and take it to its logical end. This makes the impugned decision even more suspect and open to criticism in sufficient degrees to vitiate the orders.;