Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed by a police constable, convicted of receiving Rs. 13 Lakhs in bribe, seeking quashing of the Disciplinary Authority’s order stopping three annual increments with permanent effect, the Appellate Authority’s order dismissing his appeal, the Revisional Authority’s order dismissing his revision plea. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding that the authorities miserably failed to act as quasi-judicial authorities as they passed orders mechanically without recording any reasons therein. The Court also noted that despite serious allegations of recovery of 10 kg ganja and bribery, the State did not initiate criminal proceedings against either of the parties.
Background
A departmental inquiry was initiated against the convict, a head constable in Haryana Police, alleging that he and his companions raided the complainant’s residence and recovered 10 Kg ganja. Thereafter, the convict demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs, but ultimately Rs 13 Lakhs were paid to him. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the Disciplinary Authority.
Based on the inquiry report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’) passed the impugned order awarding the convict forfeiture of three increments with permanent effect. Aggrieved, the convict preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police but was unsuccessful. The Appellate Authority too dismissed his appeal and so did the Revisional Authority.
Aggrieved, the convict filed the present petition against the three impugned orders.
Analysis
The Court noted that as per the complainant’s statement and source report, 10 Kg ganja was recovered and Rs. 13 Lakhs were paid in cash to the convict by the complainant. There was neither a recovery of the ganja nor the money. The Court stated that the State has neither registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) against the police officials who were part of the alleged raiding party nor the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) against the complainant and her husband who admitted to the recovery of ganja from their house before the inquiry officer. The Court further remarked that from the perusal of the affidavit of the Director General of Police (‘DGP’), it was evident that the State was not inclined to act either under the NDPS Act or the PC Act.
Noting that the complainant attempted to establish the recovery of ganja from her and the allegations against the convict in her complaint and the departmental proceedings, the Court remarked that the State had taken very serious allegations very casually.
The Court further noted that there was nothing on record disclosing the source of information of the DSP, despite the version of the DSP or his source report being pari materia with statements made by the complainant and her accomplice during the course of inquiry. The Court remarked that if the convict was innocent and neither ganja was recovered nor cash was paid, it was an unnecessary embarrassment to him on the part of the disgruntled complainant.
The Court stated that the State had conducted an inquiry regarding the act and conduct of the convict but not regarding the act and conduct of the complainant and her husband. Similarly, if there was an actual recovery of ganja and the bribe was accepted, it was a serious offence on the part of the convict and his team members. The Court noted that the State saved its officer by initiating merely the departmental proceedings though an FIR was bound to be registered in view of the admission of offence punishable under the NDPS Act.
The Court stated that recording reasons in orders was as important as giving an opportunity for a 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 form a link between material that the forum considered while reaching a decision and reveal a rational nexus between the two. The Court further stated that justice demanded disclosure of reasons for the decisions where the rights of the person are infringed. In this regard, the Court relied on the case Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.
In the present case, the Court noted that the Appellate Authority mechanically passed the impugned order without making any attempt to examine the convict’s version or without recording any findings and failed to discharge its duty in true spirit. The Appellate Authority was duty-bound to pass a speaking and reasoned order as per Rule 16.31 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and the judgment in Kranti Associates (Supra). The Court noted that a similar mistake was repeated by the DGP.
Thus, the Court held that since the authorities miserably failed to act as quasi-judicial authorities, the impugned orders deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the convict’s appeal.
Lastly, regarding the expressed inability of the State to proceed with respect to the recovery of ganja and payment of Rs.13 Lakhs, the Court referred the matter to the Additional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh.
[Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 1268 of 2025, decided on 06-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mohinder Pal
For the respondent: Addl. A.G. Raman Sharma
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
