SI Mukundan v. Tejveer Singh

Delhi High Court · 01 Oct 2024
C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain
W.P.(C) 521/2023
administrative petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissals without inquiry under clause (b) of the proviso to Article 311(2) as unsustainable, dismissing writ petitions challenging such dismissals in line with binding precedents.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 521/2023 and connected matter
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 521/2023, CM APPLs. 2097/2023 & 2099/2023
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, Sr. PC
WITH
SI Mukundan
VERSUS
TEJVEER SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms. Prerna Tandon, Mr. Mayank Tiwari and Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Advs.
W.P.(C) 10755/2023, CM APPL. 41677/2023
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, Mr. Karan Rawal, Advs.
WITH
ASI
Upender (North East Disstt.)
VERSUS
MANOJ SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advs.
W.P.(C) 4218/2023, CM APPLs. 16357/2023, 21322/2024 &
21323/2024 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav, Sr. PC
WITH
Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Adv.
EX CONST JAGVIR SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. M.C.
Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Goel, Mr. Karsan Chaudhary, Mr. Tushar Ahuja and Mr. R.N.
Jindal, Advs.
W.P.(C) 4764/2023, CM APPL. 18367/2023
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.Venkat, Sr. PC
WITH
Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Adv.
VERSUS
EX CONST CHANDER HAS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R (ORAL)
01.10.2024 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT

1. In all these petitions, the concerned respondents were dismissed from service without holding an inquiry by invoking the provisions of clause (b) of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that this issue is squarely covered against the petitioners by several decisions of this Court including Commissioner of Police v Karam Pal[1], Commissioner of Police v Kapil[2] (which stands upheld by the Supreme Court) and Commissioner of Police v Jagmal Singh[3] (which also stands upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP filed there against) which hold, in similar circumstances, invocation of clause (b) of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution to be unsustainable in law.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is also candid in acknowledging that these judgments cover the case in the respondents’ favour.

4. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal in these petitions are upheld. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J. DR.