In a recent judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi reaffirmed importance of strictly adhering to these conditions before invoking Article 311(2)(b).
It also highlighted that the protection of a government employee's hearing under Article 311 should not be taken away without valid and well-documented grounds. The applicant filed the case seeking several reliefs, including quashing the impugned orders of dismissal, reinstatement in service, consequential benefits, and costs of the proceedings.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Jagmal Singh, was employed in the Delhi Police and had served for around 40 years, rising through the ranks to become a Sub-Inspector (SI). On February 8, 2022, while Jagmal Singh was on duty at a traffic point in Mundka, Delhi, a CBI team arrived to apprehend him in connection with an FIR that alleged he had accepted a bribe from a CBI complainant. When the CBI team identified themselves and asked Jagmal Singh to exit his vehicle, he allegedly attempted to escape by accelerating the car, endangering the CBI team.
During this incident, an Inspector from the CBI suffered injuries. A case was registered against Jagmal Singh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duties and assault on a public servant. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority of the Delhi Police invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the dismissal of government employees without a departmental inquiry, and dismissed Jagmal Singh from service. The applicant challenged his dismissal by filing a case under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the quashing of the dismissal orders, reinstatement, and other related reliefs.
Observation of the Court:
The court noted that the Delhi Police had invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for dismissal without a departmental inquiry in certain circumstances. However, the court found that there were no valid reasons or evidence presented to bypass a regular inquiry in this case. The court observed that the applicant, Jagmal Singh, was dismissed from service without the Delhi Police conducting a proper departmental inquiry. This was seen as a violation of the rules and regulations governing such cases. The court found that the dismissal orders issued by the Delhi Police violated circulars issued by the police department in 1998 and 2007.
These circulars emphasized the need for valid reasons and prior concurrence before invoking Article 311(2)(b). The court noted that the Delhi Police had argued that witnesses might be threatened or intimidated if a regular departmental inquiry were conducted. However, the court found that there was no evidence to support this claim, and the police had not shown that they had made efforts to conduct such an inquiry. The court acknowledged the need for zero tolerance toward corruption and misconduct in public service. However, it emphasized that the protection of hearing under Article 311 of the Constitution should not be taken away without sufficient and valid grounds.
Decision of the Court:
The court concluded that the dismissal of Jagmal Singh was not justified and that the proper procedures and legal standards were not followed in his case. The court, therefore, partly allowed the case, setting aside the dismissal orders and ordering the applicant to be entitled to consequential benefits while allowing the Delhi Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Jagmal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Addln. Commissioner of Police (Traffic (HQ)
Case No.: O.A. No.2209/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Advocate for Applicant: Shri Ajesh Luthra
Advocate for Respondent: Shri Amit Yadav
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
