The Tribunal found, following its earlier order dated June 2, 1995 in A.No.232/ch/94 Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration, that the ground upon which the Senior Superintendent has dispensed with the enquiry is number sustainable in law.
CHG/1, hereby dismiss him from Government service with immediate effect.
And further, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, after companysidering all the facts and circumstances of the case, am satisfied under sub clause b of the proviso to sub section 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, that it is number reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against SI Mohinder Singh No.
Ultimately, a sum of Rupees twenty thousand was paid to the respondent whereafter Ranjit Singh was released.
An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 30th September, 1991 whereupon the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh.
CHG/1 for the reasons that the witnesses cannot companye forward freely to depose against him in a regular departmental enquiry.
Before going they told Shri Ranjit Singh that they would number testify against SI Mohinder Singh because they were scared of him.
Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal and the appellate order and directed the administration to reinstate the respondent with all attendant benefits.
The order of dismissal reads as follows O R D E R Whereas SI Mohinder Singh No.
CHG/1, PS North, Chandigarh.
In my presence he intimidated the companyplainant, Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly terrified of this Sub Inspector.
Shri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, UT, Chandigarh, has also companyducted an enquiry against him for his aforesaid nefarious activities and misdeeds and has submitted a report which proves the misconduct of I Mohinder Singh NO.CHG/1.
It was brought to my numberice that he indulged in gross misuse of official power and attempted to extort money from an innocent victim after illegally detaining and torturing him in the Police Station, which amounts to grave misconduct on the part of a Police Officer.
The respondent also told Ranjit Singh that he was torturing him at the instance of his superior officers.
sd Senior Superintendent of Police UT, Chandigarh SI Mohinder Singh, No.
Also, the 3 guests of Shri Ranjit Singh, who were also victims of the harassment caused by SI Mohinder Singh, left Chandigarh immediately on being released as they were terrified of the Sub Inspector.
Now, therefore, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory Chandigarh, appointing authority of SI Mohinder Singh No.
The last paragraph of the Report is relevant for the present purposes and reads thus I may mention that this SI is a terror in the area and in a regular departmental enquiry numberpolicemen or private man is likely to depose against him.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that he has indulged in gross misuse of official power.
The Report says that the respondent arrested one Ranjit Singh from his house at about 11.45 P.M. on the night intervening 3rd/4th July, 1991 along with two friends of Ranjit Singh who happened to be in his house at that time, brought Ranjit Singh to the police station and tortured him mercilessly on the plea that he was harbouring terrorists.
The order of dismissal refers to and is based upon the report of Sri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
The Report submits that the ground on which Ranjit Singh was arrested and tortured was wholly baseless and that it was done with a view to extort money from him.
It is reported that the respondent was in a drunken companydition at that time and that he was repeatedly asking Ranjit Singh about the whereabouts of a particular terrorist.
CHG/1 was holding the post of Sub Inspector in the Police Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
He demanded a sum of Rupees sixty thousand from Ranjit Singh as a companydition for releasing him.
The Senior Superintendent of Police dispensed with the enquiry invoking proviso b to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and made the order of dismissal on 5th July, 1991.
P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
Heard the companynsel for the parties.
The respondent, a Sub Inspector of Police in the service of the Administration of the Union territory of Chandigarh, has been dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
