CAT Quashes Major Penalty on Police Constable Due to Violation of Natural Justice”
Srinagar, September 24: In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has declared that it is mandatory to issue a charge sheet to a police official before imposing any major penalty. This decision was rendered while overturning an order dated March 31, 2011, issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Baramulla.
The order in question imposed a major penalty on Constable Davinder Singh based on the recommendations of Additional SP Baramulla, who served as the Investigating Officer (IO).
According to Constable Singh’s account, in August 1999, he was assigned 24-hour guard duty at the Police bunker of Hanjiwera Bridge on the Baramulla-Srinagar National Highway, tasked with protecting the bridge.
On August 11, 1999, an improvised explosive device (IED) detonated in the Police bunker, resulting in injuries to eight Army personnel traveling in a protection vehicle and damage to the vehicle.
An FIR was registered under relevant sections of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act at Police Station Pattan.
Singh was suspended by an order dated August 12, 1999, and a departmental inquiry was conducted by Additional S P Sopore as the Investigating Officer, which revealed that the guard had left his post without permission and without handing over arms and ammunition to another guard.
The IO recommended that Constable Singh “be reinstated into service with immediate effect, his annual increment be stopped for 3 years, his period of absence be treated as on leave without pay, and the period of suspension be treated as on duty, subject to the production of an attendance certificate.”
However, the Superintendent of Police (SP) Baramulla disagreed with the IO’s recommendations and, by an order dated September 30, 1999, terminated Singh from service.
Singh challenged his termination in the High Court, which ruled on September 8, 2005, that “under the J&K Police Manual, a Superintendent of Police has no authority to impose such a penalty on a constable” and set aside the termination.
Upon government appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the authorities to proceed from the stage of the second show cause notice. Subsequently, Singh was reinstated in service on December 19, 2007.
The IO, who was appointed again, issued a notice to Singh regarding departmental proceedings for the imposition of a major punishment. In his report, the IO stated that the in-charge guard was not dedicated to his duties, and Singh used to leave his post without proper permission, leaving one sanitary post unattended.
Based on the IO’s recommendations, the District Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, confirmed the penalty on March 31, 2011.
Singh, aggrieved by the penalty, challenged it in the High Court, and the matter was transferred to the Srinagar Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal after the reorganization of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory.
After hearing both sides, the tribunal disposed of the transfer application.
The CAT noted that the show cause notice dated December 24, 2009, lacked attachment of a charge sheet and did not mention the memorandum of charges.
Furthermore, the tribunal pointed out that the inquiry conducted by the Additional S P Baramulla did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. It highlighted that Rule 334 of the J&K Police Manual, 1960, did not mention any penalty called ‘dies non,’ rendering the punishment non-existent as per the manual.
Consequently, the CAT unequivocally quashed the order dated March 31, 2011, issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, on grounds of violating natural justice and imposing an unauthorized penalty. This ruling has significant implications for the disciplinary actions against police officials.
