JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is taken up for hearing.
(2.)THIS writ petition challenges the judgment of the Central administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 3rd October, 2007 allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein Constable dayanand, who was a driver in Delhi Police. The allegation against the appellant arose from an incident where certain allegations were made against the respondent upon the recovery of the gold ornaments from his person, while chasing certain robbers. The question involved in the OA in fact relates to the dispensation of the departmental inquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. The said provision of the Constitution reads as follows:
"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State - (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: [provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: provided further that this clause shall not apply-] (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. "
(3.)THE reasoning by the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of police, Police Headquarters for invoking the above provision of the constitution reads as follows:
"in this circumstance of the case, the possibility of the victim being unduly pressurized and threatened duly (sic) the departmental proceed-ing cannot be ruled out. It is probable that in a regular DE, the defaulter will overawe the witnesses who out of the fear may not depose against him. This is one of those glaring official grave misconduct which erode the faith of public in the criminal justice system. Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that for the reasons mentioned above, it is not practicable to hold a regular de against him for establishing the truth. In view of over all circumstances of the case, I Ajay Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi hereby order dismissal of Const. (Dvr)Daya Nand No. 4696/pcr (PIS No. 28970052) from the force immediate effect under article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. "
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.