Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Punjab Police Constable 30 Years Ago for ‘In Touch with Extremists’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the suspension of a Punjab Police Constable who was suspended in 1995 on the basis of a special intelligence report that he was in direct contact with extremists when the state was facing terrorism problem.

Taking into account the conduct of the petitioner, which the high court said was not above the board, the court found no reason to interfere with the decision or the authorities dismissing the petitioner.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal In his order he said: “The petitioner was dismissed in 1995, leaving a period of almost three decades behind. At this belated stage, especially where the conduct of the petitioner is not above the board, there seems to be no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by different authorities under the Punjab Police Act, 1861, read with the Punjab Police Rules, 1934“.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed in 1999 by Mann Singh, who was removed from the post of police officer by the Senior Inspector of Punjab Police in 1995.

Mann’s counsel argued that he was dismissed without complying with the power under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

He said the Disciplinary Authority abandoned investigating him “without any justification or justification” for his association with Babbar Khalsa, an extremist group. He argued that Mann had been dismissed mechanically without any application of reason, causing irreparable loss to him.

The lawyer acting on behalf of the Punjab Government stated that “between 1985 and 1995, the Punjab State faced a serious terrorism problem.” It was alleged that the investigation was abandoned under compelling circumstances as it was not possible for any witness to come forward and testify against the applicant due to fear and pressure. It was alleged that there was specific intelligence against the petitioner that he was “in direct contact with extremists”. The petitioner was dismissed based on confidential reports received from the State of West Bengal and the Government of India, the government said.

Examining the applications, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court. Council of Research Center for Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others (2023) said that there are “two fundamental legal principles” governing the grant of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely that the Supreme Court does not exercise the powers of the Appellate Court. It does not examine or re-evaluate the evidence on which the lower court’s decision purportedly relied.

Secondly, even if in a particular case some act or order impugned in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, may refuse to quash the same in order to achieve substantial justice between the parties.

The court underlined that a writ of certiorari can be granted to correct jurisdictional errors committed by lower courts or tribunals. Miscarriage of jurisdiction involves a decision made by a lower court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or as a result of non-exercise of jurisdiction. But the court said the power to issue writs of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it has no right to act as an appellate court. It was stated that a legal error clearly visible in the records can be corrected by a court decision, but a material error, no matter how serious it seems, cannot be corrected.

Examining the disputed dismissal decision, the Court noted that the defendant did not disclose the intelligence information that “accelerated the abandonment of the investigation and dismissed the petitioner.” However, it was stated that on the request of the Court, the State Counsel submitted a report based on communication received from the State of West Bengal and also received from the Government of India.

“From perusal of the reports received from the State of West Bengal, it is clear that the petitioner has misused his official position. He was detained by the Kolkata Police and was carrying an official weapon at that time. He had gone there without informing his superiors and without prior approval. He introduced himself as the Gunman of the so-called president of the District Congress Dal in Amritsar.” remarked Justice Bansal.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the case.

Case Title: MANN SINGH – STATE OF PENJAB AND ORS

Mr. BS Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr GS Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.

Click here to read/download the order