Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Punjab Police Constable Made 30 Years Ago For Being In 'Contact With Extremists'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Punjab Police Constable, who was expelled from service in 1995 on the basis of a specific intelligence report that he was in direct contact with extremists during the time the State was facing problem of terrorism.Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, which the high court said was not above the board, the court found no reason to interfere with the order or the authorities which dismissed the petitioner from service. Justice Jagmohan Bansal in its order said, "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, 1934". The Court was hearing writ petition filed by Mann Singh in 1999, who was dismissed from service of constable in 1995 by Senior Superintendent of Punjab Police.Counsel appearing for Mann argued that he was dismissed from service without complying with mandate of Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.He said that the Disciplinary Authority dispensed with inquiry and dismissed him from service "without any rhyme or reason" on the ground that he had relations with Babbar Khalsa, an extremist group. He argued that Mann was dismissed mechanically, without any application of mind and it caused irreparable loss to him. Counsel appearing for Punjab Government submitted that "during 1985 to 1995, the State of Punjab was facing acute problem of terrorism". It was argued that the inquiry was dispensed with under compelling circumstances as there was no possibility of any witness to come forward and make a statement against the petitioner on account of fear and coercion. It was argued that 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 government said. After examining the submissions, the Court referring to Supreme Court's decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others (2023) said that, there are "two cardinal principles of law" governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. 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.Secondly 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. The Court underscored that the 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. However, the court said, 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. 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, it said. Perusing the dismissal order under challenge, the Court noted that the the respondent has not disclosed intelligence input "which gave impetus to dispense with inquiry and dismissed" the petitioner from service. However, it said that, on the asking of the Court, State Counsel produced report received from State of West Bengal which is further based upon communication received from Government of India."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," noted Justice Bansal.In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.Case Title: MANN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 369Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. G.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Click here to read/download the order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Punjab Police Constable Made 30 Years Ago For Being In 'Contact With Extremists'

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags