Disciplinary Proceedings| Recording Of Reasons In Orders Is Equally Important As Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

A Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and without affording the Petitioner a chance to be examined. The Court observed that despite the complainant and her husband admitting before the inquiry officer that 10 kg of ganja was recovered from their house, no action had been taken against them under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and similarly, no action had been taken against the 4-5 police officials who were part of the alleged raiding party.

The Court said, “The complainant and her accomplice categorically stated that ganja was recovered and a sum of Rs.13 lakh was paid to the petitioner. If the petitioner was innocent and neither ganja was recovered nor cash was paid, it was un- necessary embarrassment to him on the part of disgruntled family. The respondent has conducted inquiry with respect to act and conduct of the petitioner whereas no inquiry was conducted with respect to act and conduct of complainant and her family who made serious allegations. Similarly, if there was actual recovery of ganja and bribe was accepted, it was serious offence on the part of petitioner and his team members. The respondent has saved its officer. The respondent initiated departmental proceeding though in view of admission of commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act, FIR was bound to be registered.”

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Mohinder Pal, whereas Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Raman Sharma represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, a head constable in the Haryana Police Force, faced a departmental inquiry for allegedly raiding the complainant’s residence with 2-3 others and recovering 10 kg of ganja. He then demanded Rupees 20 lakh to settle the matter, which was ultimately agreed upon for Rupees 16 lakh. The complainant paid Rupees 13 lakh the same day, with Rupees 3 lakh due later. However, the complainant chose to expose the petitioner, but he got a clue and did not return to collect the remaining amount. The remaining 13 lakh was paid to the mediator. Based on the inquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, issued an order imposing the punishment of forfeiture of three increments, with permanent effect.

The Petitioner first appealed to the Inspector General of Police, but it was dismissed without consideration of his contentions. He then filed a revision before the Director General of Police, which was also rejected.

Contentions

It was contended by the Petitioner that he was implicated at the behest of a disgruntled family member. It was further contended that despite finding that the allegation of recovery of ganja and cash was patently false, the authorities still subjected him to punishment of forfeiture of three increments, impacting his career.

The Respondents submitted that, besides the complaint filed by the complainant, a source report was also received by the Superintendent of Police. Based on this report, the Petitioner was suspended and subjected to a departmental inquiry, where he was found guilty of visiting the village without permission, while on duty. As a result, he was punished with the stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect. The Appellate Authority, finding no merit in his appeal, dismissed it.

Reasoning

Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the Court noted that despite the complainant and her husband admitting to the recovery of 10 kgs of ganja from them, a punishable offense under the NDPS Act, and the fact that both payment and acceptance of a bribe are crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the Respondents did not register an FIR under either Act. Further, 4-5 police officials were in the alleged raid party, however, there was nothing on record to show any action had been taken against them.

The Bench took a stern view of the fact that the Appellate Authority had passed the impugned order against the Petitioner mechanically and without recording any reasons. The Court said, “ Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of hearing. The recording of reasons in order is based upon the established principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. It operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of power. The reasons in order means link between material which the forum considered while reaching the conclusion and reveals a rational nexus between the two. Justice demands disclosure of reasons for the decisions where the rights of the person are infringed.”

The Bench stated that under Rule 16.31 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a speaking and reasoned order was mandatory, and that no attempt had been made by the it to examine the version of the petitioner and record findings, and said, “Appellate Authority has failed to discharge his duty in true spirit.”

The Court, accordingly, set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner.

Additionally, the Court referred the matter to the Additional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh, to examine the recovery of 10 kg of ganja and the payment of ₹13,00,000/-. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order along with the complete paper book to the Additional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau.

Cause Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation No:2025:PHHC:032141)

Click here to read/download