CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana HC has upheld the dismissal of a Punjab police constable — who had taken two pistols from Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale during the period of terrorism in Punjab — who was removed from service in October 1984 without holding an inquiry.
Upholding Punjab Police’s decision almost after 40 years, HC held that constable Jaswinder Singh’s dismissal was based on him having contact with terrorists.“At the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in Punjab, therefore there were sufficient grounds for dispensation of regular inquiry against the cop as no witness would have come forward to depose. Inquiry would have taken a long time and keeping him in service till its completion during those days could have been risky and not in public interest. Hence it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry in this case,” held Justice Namit Kumar, while allowing an appeal filed by Punjab govt challenging the orders through which the cop’s dismissal was set aside.
Jaswinder joined service in 1977, and served until 1984 when he was suspended on account of filing of an FIR against him under Arms Act. On Oct 15, 1984, he was dismissed from service without inquiry by invoking Article 311 (2) of Constitution.
Authorities justified that the dismissal was legal and valid to maintain public order and security of the state as Jaswinder had links with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale but because of non-recovery of the weapon, the case under the Arms Act was returned as untraced.
In its appeal, Punjab argued that the lower court had failed to appreciate that the accused constable had links with terrorists. Jaswinder, however, argued that the order of his dismissal was arbitrary and an attempt to deprive him of his right to have a fair hearing in the matter of dismissal. After hearing all parties, Justice Namit Kumar noticed from the police record that Jaswinder had met Bhindranwale two-three times and two pistols were given to him by Bhindranwale, of which the cop gave one to Teja Singh of his village and threw the second weapon into a canal.
The judge observed that while it is true that for holding a departmental inquiry, the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 might be mandatorily adhered to, the same doesn’t apply to cases where no departmental inquiry is to be held. In the present case, a department inquiry was dispensed with as the same was not practicable, therefore, Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules would not apply to the facts of the present case.
