Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mann Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
CWP-620-1999 (O&M) 1
209(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-620-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision:21.11.2024
MANN SINGH ..........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders
dated 09.10.1995 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was dismissed from
service; order dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) whereby his appeal was
dismissed; and order dated 27.11.1998 (Annexure P-6) whereby his
revision was dismissed.
2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on
04.03.1987 on compassionate ground. He came to be dismissed vide
order dated 09.10.1995 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police,
Amritsar. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority
followed by revision before Revisionary Authority. He was dismissed
from service without complying with mandate of Rule 16.24 of Punjab
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
Police Rules, 1934 as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
The Disciplinary Authority dispensed with inquiry and dismissed him
from service on the ground that he has relations with Babbar Khalsa, an
extremist group.
3. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner submits that
respondent did not comply with mandate of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India without any rhyme or reason. There was no ground
to dispense with inquiry. He was dismissed mechanically and it caused
irreparable loss to him. The Appellate Authorities have also acted
mechanically and there is no application of mind. The impugned orders
deserve to be set aside and petitioner needs to be reinstated with back
wages.
4. Mr. G.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab submits that during 1985 to
1995, the State of Punjab was facing acute problem of terrorism. There
was specific intelligence against the petitioner that he is in direct
connection with extremists. On the basis of secret reports received from
State of West Bengal as well as Government of India, the petitioner was
dismissed from service. The inquiry was dispensed with under
compelling circumstances. There was no possibility of any witness to
come forward and make a statement against the petitioner on account of
fear and coercion.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. Different Benches of Supreme Court including a
Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964
SC 477 and a two judge bench recently in Central Council for Research
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023
SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that there are two cardinal
principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article
226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the
powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence
upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be
based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without
jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views
for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an
error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case,
even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be
illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing
substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ
court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest
dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if
it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would
render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.
A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of
jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction
includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in
excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can
similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the
Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a
question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute
is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt
that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory
jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an
appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of
evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error
of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a
writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard
to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be
issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had
erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence,
that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a
writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we
must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was
insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy
or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be
drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is
within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.
7. In the impugned order, the respondent has not disclosed
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
intelligence input which gave impetus to dispense with inquiry and
dismissed the petitioner from service, however, on the asking of Court,
learned State Counsel produced report received from State of West
Bengal which is further based upon communication received from
Government of India.
8. From the perusal of reports received from State of West
Bengal, it is apparent that petitioner was misusing his official position.
He was detained by Kolkata Police and at that point of time, he was
carrying official gun. He had gone there without informing his seniors as
well as without getting prior approval. He was posing himself as Gunman
of purported President of District Congress Dal, Amritsar.
9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.385 of 1993
titled as 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Dalbir Singh through his LRs',
relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in 'Union Territory,
Chandigarh and others Vs. Mohinder Singh', (1997) 3 SCC 68 has
upheld dispensation of inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India, in view of peculiar situation prevailing in the State of Punjab
during the period in question. The case of petitioner is squarely covered
by judgment of this Court in Dalbir Singh (supra) as well as Supreme
Court in Mohinder Singh (Supra).
10. There is another facet of the matter which needs to be
noticed. The petitioner was dismissed from service in 1995 and a period
almost three decades has passed away. At this belated stage, especially
when conduct of petitioner was not above the board, there seems no
reason to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by different
authorities under Punjab Police Act, 1861 read with Punjab Police Rules,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153187
1934.
11. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present
petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
21.11.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
