The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected an appeal contesting the termination of jail staff who were dismissed following the Nabha Jail escape incident in 2016 and held that the respondents have decided on due application of mind and the requirement of reaching to such a conclusion cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary in nature and order of dismissal from service passed by the respondents does not warrant any interference.
Brief Facts:
In 2016, a group of armed individuals, dressed as jail officers and using cars, gained entry into Punjab's high-security Nabha Jail pretending to bring in men posing as handcuffed prisoners. Inside the jail, six inmates had already managed to get to the area between the two security gates, having persuaded the staff to allow them access. Following this jailbreak, the involved authorities were removed from their positions under the rules of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The instant Civil Writ Petition was filed to contest this dismissal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's learned counsel argued that the use of Article 311(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution in this case was inappropriate, as there was no reason to bypass a regular inquiry. Additionally, the counsel highlighted the petitioner's 30 years of spotless service, arguing that he deserved a chance to defend himself. The counsel emphasized that the dismissal, which deprived the petitioner of his livelihood, was imposed without an opportunity for a hearing. Further, the learned counsel contended that the dismissal order violated Article 166 of the Constitution, as it failed to specify that the power was exercised in the Governor's name.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel countered that regarding the petitioner's counsel's assertion about the order being in the Governor's name, it is noted that once the Governor authorizes an official under the Rules of Business to act on his behalf, it's presumed that an order signed by a competent authority according to these rules is effectively an order under Article 166 of the Constitution, representing the Governor. The learned counsel further explained that in departmental proceedings, the competent authority is the State Government, with the power being executed by a specific officer. Moreover, the dismissal order can be reviewed and decided upon by the Governor. Hence, the argument of the petitioner's learned counsel is considered untenable. Furthermore, the assertion that the order should have been directly issued by the Governor is deemed entirely misplaced and thus rejected. Article 166(2) of the Constitution is also applicable in this case, where the authority has been delegated under the Rules of Business on behalf of the Government.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that once the Governor delegates authority under the Rules of Business, it's assumed that any order signed by the designated official is, in essence, an order made under Article 166 of the Constitution on behalf of the Governor.
Dismissing the petitioner's claim that the Governor should have issued the order, the Court cited Rule 9 (1) of the Rules of Business, explaining that this rule authorizes the Appointing Authority, or the officer, to represent the Governor. Signatures made by such an officer are considered valid authentication of the order or instrument in question.
Additionally, the Court noted that in the specific context of this case, it was acceptable to forgo a departmental inquiry. The Court underscored the importance of natural justice, stating that individuals accused of wrongdoing must have the chance to defend themselves. This principle, integral to the conduct of departmental inquiries, especially when major penalties are at stake, is firmly established in the relevant Rules.
However, the Court also acknowledged that in certain situations, where allegations are evidently substantiated, conducting a further inquiry into the facts might be unnecessary and could be waived. The Court referred to the Supreme Court case Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank and others, which discussed the conduct of departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that while documentary and witness evidence are usually required, in cases where potential witnesses cannot testify (as in situations where involved individuals have fled or are facing criminal charges), concluding that a departmental inquiry is unfeasible is not an arbitrary decision.
Lastly, the Court considered the counsel's concerns regarding the severity of the punishment meted out to the petitioners. Citing Union of India vs Subrata Nath, the Court mentioned that the High Court cannot mandate a review of a punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority when the individual in question is prima facie guilty of significant misconduct.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed all the petitions.
Case Title: Paramjit Singh Sandhu vs. The State of Punjab and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Case No.: CWP No. 6052 of 2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Mr. S.S. Rana, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Arshdeep, Ms. Sunder Kumari, Mr. A.K Walia
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R.K Kapoor
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
