- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Samarjeet Tiwari And Others v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter arises from a large-scale recruitment exercise conducted in 2006 to fill vacancies for Constables across divisions in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Approximately 19,000 candidates were selected by different committees and appointed, subject to statutory probation and training under the U.P. Police Regulations.
Subsequently, the State government (respondents) acted to terminate the services of a large number of these police recruits on the basis of a report produced by a committee headed by Shri Shailaja Kant Mishra (the "Shailaja Kant Committee"). The petitioners challenged the terminations by filing a bunch of writ petitions; the Court heard counsel for petitioners and respondents and consolidated common questions of fact and law.
The Court noted earlier relevant decisions — in particular a Single Judge's earlier judgment in Harendra Singh (writ petition No.2809(S/S) of 2005) upholding the validity of the selection process, and subsequent Single Judge and Division Bench decisions in Pawan Kumar Singh and connected matters — and framed a list of specific questions for adjudication when admitting the writ petitions on 6.11.2007.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an order of termination can be passed on the basis of the State Government's report without application of mind by the appointing authority to individual cases of selectees appointed against regular vacancies.
- Whether the present controversy is covered by the earlier Harendra Singh decision and whether the State may administratively re-open or sit in appeal over that judgment.
- Whether the State could hold a de novo enquiry if the matter is found to be settled by Harendra Singh.
- Whether it was incumbent on the State Government or the appointing authority to consider individual cases before passing the impugned orders of termination pursuant to the enquiry report.
- Whether termination of services is an abuse of power in absence of material affecting the petitioners' service career when petitioners satisfy required conditions for appointment.
- Whether the petitioners' services could be terminated in absence of allegations of fraud, concealment or undue influence, and without complying with principles of natural justice.
- Whether the order of termination can be passed without application of mind by the appointing authority.
- Whether the State action suffers from mala fide and amounts to abuse of power.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The impugned memorandum and its factual averments are false and incorrect.
- The 2005–2006 selection process had previously been challenged and upheld by this Court in Harendra Singh (judgment dated 23.8.2005), thereby foreclosing re-opening by the State through administrative action.
- The State's decision to terminate services of a large number of recruits was politically motivated, taken for extraneous reasons and without proper application of mind.
- The Shailaja Kant Committee allegedly relied on isolated instances of irregularity to condemn the entire selection process; the few alleged irregularities do not justify mass termination of all appointees (c.19,000).
- No fraud or concealment of fact was attributed to the petitioners; thus termination was legally impermissible without following the procedure mandated by the U.P. Police Regulations (including service of notice and opportunity to reply under Regulation 541) and the protections available under Article 311 of the Constitution.
- The petitioners were appointed against regular vacancies and were on probation; the State could not terminate services en masse merely because of a change of government without individualized consideration and adherence to statutory procedure.
- Reference to an earlier Division Bench judgment (in a challenge to constitution of the Shailaja Kant Committee) which recorded that the Director General of Police was not competent to constitute the Committee; that Division Bench judgment is subject to SLP in the Supreme Court.
The provided opinion does not set out detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents; only the respondents' appearances and representation are recorded.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.2809(S/S) of 2005) | Earlier judicial determination upholding validity of the 2005–2006 selection process. | Court treated the Harendra Singh finding as binding on the State unless set aside by a higher forum and relied on it to hold that the State could not administratively re-open the matter without due process. |
| Pawan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.45645 of 2007) and State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Singh (Special Appeal No.244 of 2009) | Single Judge and Division Bench decisions allowing similar petitions; Division Bench affirmed but indicated segregation of tainted/untainted candidates should be considered individually. | Court relied on these decisions to support allowing the present writ petitions and to emphasize the need for individual consideration of candidates. |
| Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21 | Probationers enjoy protection; requirement to issue charge-sheet or show-cause before termination. | Used to support the proposition that petitioners (probationers) were entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before termination. |
| Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., (2000) 5 SCC 152 | Where Regulations prescribe procedure for terminating a probationer, that procedure must be followed; probationer must be informed of grounds and allowed to explain. | Quoted directly and applied to hold that U.P. Police Regulations require notice and opportunity to reply before termination; absence of such compliance invalidated the impugned orders. |
| P.N. Verma v. S.G.P.G.I., (2002) 1 SCC 520 | Support for the rule that probationers are entitled to statutory procedure and natural justice protections. | Relied upon to reinforce requirement of issuing charge-sheet/show-cause to probationers prior to termination. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 | Principle that natural justice is part of Article 14 and that right to livelihood is a constitutional interest protected from arbitrary deprivation. | Court invoked Maneka Gandhi to ground the requirement that administrative action depriving livelihood must conform to natural justice and constitutional guarantees. |
| State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and Ramendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India (Rule 55-B authority) | Rule 55-B (civil services) obliges notice to show cause before terminating a probationer; akin to para 541 of U.P. Police Regulations. | Court used the analogy to emphasize mandatory nature of notice and opportunity to reply before terminating probationary employment. |
| Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527; Patna Improvement Trust v. Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1963 SC 1077; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295; and numerous others listed in para 24 | Authoritative support for the general principle that government action must be taken in the manner provided by statute or rules; authorities collectively demonstrate that statutory procedure cannot be ignored. | Court cited this line of authorities to underpin the conclusion that the State must act in accordance with statutory provisions (U.P. Police Regulations and U.P. Police Act) and cannot act dehors the rules. |
| A.K. Kraipak & others v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150; Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, A.I.R. 1991 SC 101 | Administrative and quasi-judicial distinctions have been blurred; minimum requirement of natural justice must be complied with when depriving persons of livelihood. | Court relied on these authorities to stress that State authorities cannot act autocratically to deprive persons of their livelihood and must follow natural justice. |
| Sadananda Halo & others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & others, 2008 Vol. 4 SCC 619 | Validity of recruitment cannot be judged by microscopic/sampling scrutiny; courts should not decide by sample surveys of success/failure. | Court cited this to caution against invalidating large recruitments on the basis of microscopic irregularities and to support the petitioners' position against wholesale annulment. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 226 | Rule of law requires decisions to be made by application of known principles and rules; unpredictable, principless decisions are antithetical to rule of law. | Court invoked this statement of principle to criticize hurried, politically motivated administrative action and to emphasize predictability and lawful process. |
| Amarnath Ashram Trust Society v. Governor of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 477; Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 1993(3) SCC 634; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 | If State action lacks bona fide, it amounts to a colourable exercise of power; discretion is subject to reasonableness and bona fides. | Court applied these authorities to conclude that governmental discretion is examinable and that actions lacking bona fide or being colourable exercises can be set aside. |
| Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others (1998 & 1999 citations) | Listed among authorities emphasizing statutory compliance and judicial oversight of administrative action. | Cited to support the general proposition that the State must respect statutory procedure and constitutional requirements. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded by reference to statutory protections for probationers, the settled constitutional requirement of natural justice, and precedent establishing that government action must conform to the manner provided by statute.
- The Court observed that the petitioners were appointed against regular vacancies and were on probation under the U.P. Police Regulations; as probationers they enjoy protection under Article 311 and related precedents that require notice and an opportunity to reply before termination.
- The Court quoted Chandra Prakash Shahi (and Rule 55-B analogies) to emphasize that where regulations prescribe a termination procedure for probationers, that mandatory procedure must be followed — specifically, informing the probationer of grounds and permitting explanation — and failure to do so renders the termination procedurally infirm.
- The Court relied on a substantial body of authority to underline the overarching principle that the State cannot take action dehors statutory mandates; the decision-making process must be carried out in the manner provided by law.
- The Court noted the earlier judicial adjudication in Harendra Singh upholding the validity of the selection process and held that the State was not justified in administratively reopening or reviewing that judgment by way of executive action; if the State disagreed it should have pursued judicial remedies rather than executive re-examination.
- The Court found no material on record indicating that the petitioners had committed fraud or concealment of facts; absent such specific allegations and absent adherence to the required statutory procedure, mass termination by a stroke of pen was unjustified.
- The Court also referenced the principle that administrative discretion is not absolute and must be exercised bona fide; where actions appear hurried, politically influenced or lacking in procedural fairness, they fail judicial scrutiny.
- Finally, the Court invoked Sadananda Halo and similar authorities to caution against invalidating entire recruitments on the basis of microscopic or sample-based scrutiny of alleged irregularities.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders of termination. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to restore the petitioners to service forthwith with due back wages within one month, with liberty to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law subject to availability of material.
Implications:
- The direct effect is restoration of the petitioners to service with consequential benefits including back wages, to be implemented within one month as directed.
- The respondents are directed to communicate the order to the Principal Secretary, Home and the Director General of Police for compliance.
- The State retains a limited option to proceed afresh, but any fresh action must comply with statutory procedure, principles of natural justice and the constraints imposed by the binding judicial findings (notably Harendra Singh) unless and until those findings are set aside by a higher forum.
- No order as to costs was made.
- The opinion did not purport to lay down a novel legal principle; it applied established constitutional and regulatory principles to the facts and emphasized statutory compliance and procedural fairness rather than announcing a new precedent.
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sameer Kalia, Mr. Amit Bose, Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Mr. Rajeev Singh, Mr. I.P. Singh, Mr. Shishir Jain, Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jai Deep Narayan Mathur, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
2. In these bunch of writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved and decided by present common judgment.
3. From the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it borne out that in the year 2006, selections were done to fill up large number of vacancies of Constables in the police department in the State of U.P. 19000 candidates and odd were selected in different divisions of the State of U.P. by different committees and selectees were appointed accordingly. Under the U.P. Police Regulations, appointments are done on probation with due training.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel that the facts, enumerated in the impugned memorandum are false and incorrect. It has been further submitted that the selection of the year 2005-2006 was challenged in this Court and its validity was upheld by Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2005, passed in writ petition No.2809(S/S) of 2005 Harendra Singh versus state of U.P. and others. It has also been submitted that the decision taken by the respondents to terminate the services of such large number of police recruits was politically motivated and is based on unfounded facts. The submission is that a committee was constituted in pursuance to the order, passed by the Director General of Police, headed by Shri Shailaja Kant Mishra, Addl. Director General of Police( in short, Shailja Kant Committee). According to the petitioners' counsel, the Committee has acted for extraneous reasons and in a very unfair manner recorded a finding that the entire selection was bad in law and suffers from arbitrary exercise of power. It is also submitted that while submitting report, the Shailaja Kant Committee has given instances which pinpoints with regard to alleged irregularity in selection of certain individuals. It has been submitted that the entire report of the Committee is farce and sham. The alleged irregularities detected by the Commitee with regard to few candidates do not make out a case to terminate the services of all 19000 police personnels who were appointed by different Committees in the State of U.P. and the petitioners are some of them.
5. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the case in hand, no fraud or concealment of fact has been attributed to the petitioners and accordingly, the termination of service is bad in law. Supplementing his arguments, learned counsels further submit that under U.P. Police Regulations, a constable shall be deemed to be on probation and service career of the probationer shall also be protected by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that before terminating the services of a probationer, it shall be incumbent upon the State Government to serve a notice and only after receipt of reply and on finding the reply unsatisfactory, the services may be terminated. Fresh appointments were done against regular vacancies in accordance with rules. The State Government was not justified to en-mass terminate the services of the petitioners by stroke of pen only by the change of government. This Court's attention has been invited to the judgment and order dated 14.1.2009, passed in writ petition No.7700 of 2007 where the constitution of committee headed by Shailaja Kant Mishra was impugned. The Division Bench of this Court has recorded a finding that the Director General of Police was not competent to constitute the Committee to make scrutiny with regard to appointments done in the year 2006. However, the Division Bench's judgment of this Court is subject matter of a special leave petition pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. While admitting these bunch of writ petitions in writ petition No.7270(S/S) of 2007, following questions were framed on 6.11.2007 for adjudication :
1. Whether without application of mind by the appointing authority to individual cases of selectees against the regular vacancy, the order of termination can be passed on the basis of the report submitted by the State Government ?
2. Whether the present controversy is also covered by the Harendra Singh's case and it is not open for the State Government to sit in appeal over the judgment of this Court and the controversy in question which relates to Moradabad is also covered by the Harendra Singh's case ?
3. Whether it was not open for the State Government to hold de nova enquiry in the present controversy in case it is found to be settled by Harendra Singh's case, adjudicated by this Court ?
4. Whether it was incumbent on the State Government or the appointing authority to consider the individual cases before passing the impugned order of termination in pursuance to the enquiry report ?
5. Whether in the absence of any material against the petitioners which may affect their service career, selection, appointment or in case it is found that the petitioners fulfil all required condition for appointment on the post of Constable in the police department, the termination of their services is an act of abuse of power by the State Government ?
6. Whether the petitioners' services could have been terminated by the respondents in absence of any allegation relating to commission of fraud, concealment of fact or undue influence during the course of their selection and appointment and the services can be terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice ?
7. Whether the order of termination can be passed without application of mind by the appointing authority ?
8. Whether the State action suffers from mala fide and amounts to abuse of power ?
However, it is not necessary to deal with each and every question because of the fact that squarely identical writ petitions have been allowed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad by judgment and order dated 8.12.2008, passed in writ petition No.45645 of 2007 Pawan Kumar Singh versus State of U.P. and others. The judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge has been reaffirmed in Special Appeal No.244 of 2009 State of U.P. versus Pawan Kumar Singh and others and connected appeals. However, though the final outcome of the judgment or Hon'ble Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench, but while affirming the judgment, Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J by a separate judgment has opined that the State should segregate the tainted and untainted candidates by considering the cases individually.
7. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge (supra) as well as Division Bench in Special Appeal, present writ petitions deserve to be allowed. However, I wish to add some additional reasons while allowing the writ petitions.
8. It is settled provision of law that a probationer also enjoys protection guaranteed by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, right to livelihood is a fundamental right and the State or its instrumentalities have got no right to deal with the persons who have been selected against permanent post in an arbitrary manner without holding regular enquiry on the basis of the allegations without due compliance of the principle of natural justice. Since the petitioners were selected against regular vacancies in P.A.C., Wireless and Civil Police and they were on probation, in view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (1999)2 SCC 21 Radhey Shyam Gupta versus U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited, (2000)5 SCC 152 Chandra Prakash Shahi versus State of U.P. and (2002)1 SCC 520 P.N. Verma versus S.G.P.G.I., the respondents should have issued charge-sheet or show-cause notice before passing the impugned order of termination from service. Moreover, right from Maneka Gandhi's case (Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597), the principle of natural justice is held to be part and parcel of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person appointed in government service in accordance with rules cannot be deprived of his source of livelihood in violation of the principle of natural justice.
9. The U.P. Police Regulations contain specific procedure for termination of services of the police constable. In the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"33. Where, therefore, the services of a probationer are proposed to be terminated and a particular procedure is prescribed by the Regulations for that purpose, then the termination has to be brought about in that manner. The probationer Constable has to be informed of the grounds on which his services are proposed to be terminated and he is required to explain his position. The reply is to be considered by the Superintendent of Police so that if the reply is found to be convincing, he may not be deprived of his services."
"34. If this procedure is followed and the services are terminated thereafter, it would not amount to a punitive action. The rule being mandatory in nature, compliance therewith would not alter the nature of the order pass3090(M/B)/09ed against the probationer. This aspect was considered by this Court in two decisions, namely, State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and Ramendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India in terms of Rule 55-B of the civil services (classification, control & appeal) rules, which, in all respects, is akin to para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations quoted above. The relevant portion of Rule 55-B which was extracted in the case of State of Orissa versus Ram Narayan Das is quoted below :
"Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation, for any specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service, the probationer shall be apprised of the grounds of such proposal and given an opportunity to show cause against it, before orders are passed by the authority competent to terminate the employment."
"35. Immediately after quoting the Rule, the Court observed :
"Notice to show cause whether the employment of the respondent should be terminated was, by Rule 55-B made obligatory."
10. It is also settled provision of law that in case the government wants to do something or wants to take any action, then that should be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise vide Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527, Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077; State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295, (Para 34) Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266; Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296; Dhanajay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633; Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657, Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426; Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077; Ramchandra Keshav Adke Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573; State of Bihar and others Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326, A.K.Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160; State of Mizoram VS. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156; J.N.Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520; Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281; and Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad (1998) 8 SCC 266.
11. In the present case, procedure contained in U.P. Police Regulations has not been followed while passing the impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the petitioners being police recruits, the respondents should have invoked the procedure contained in the U.P. Police Regulations, coupled with the U.P. Police Act while passing the impugned order of termination. The State or its authorities cannot be permitted to act dehors the Rules. The decision taken in violation of the statutory provisions is ante thesis of rule of law. Even keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the State or its authorities have got no right to take action in violation of the statutory provisions. The offence or irregularity, howsoever grievous may be, the State has to act in accordance with the Constitutional mandate and statutory provisions. That is the basic concept and minimum requirement for the survival of democracy in a country.
13. Moreover, once Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Harendra Singh(supra) has finally adjudicated the controversy and recorded a finding that there was no illegality found in the selection process, then the State does not seem to be justified to reopen the issue without adhering the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Harendra Singh. It is not open for the State to review through administrative process the judgment and order of this Court which has attained finality and reopen the issue. The only option before the State was to challenge such judgment and proceed in accordance with law. Unless the judgment in the case of Harendra Singh(supra) is set aside by higher forum, the State is bound by the verdict (supra). The observation made in the judgment of Harendra Singh shall be binding on the State and it shall not be open to it to proceed in a manner which is contrary to the findings recorded by this Court. However, there appears to be no doubt that in the event of commission of fraud or forgery, State may deal with such situation with due compliance of principle of natural justice.
14. From the evidence on record, there appears to be no material which may reveal that the petitioners were involved in commission of any fraud or concealment of facts. In case the petitioners appeared before the duly constituted Selection Committee and were selected and served for more than a year, then there appears to be no justification on the part of the respondents to terminate the petitioners' services by the stroke of pen, more so when it is trite in law that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right and administrative or quasi judicial authorities have got no right to deprive a person from the source of livelihood without following due process of law.
15. Long back, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 150 followed by another Constitution Bench judgment reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC 101, Delhi Transport Corporation Versus D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others held that difference between the administrative and quasi-judicial authorities or even a judicial authority has been obliterated. The State or its authorities have got no right to proceed in an autocratic manner to deprive a person or persons from their source of livelihood. The minimum requirement of the compliance of principle of natural justice is must keeping in view the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The manner in which the State authorities proceeded and dispensed with the services of such large number of police constables in hurried manner immediately after change of government does not inspire confidence in the fairness of action.
16. In the case reported in 2008 Vol. 4 SCC 619 Sadananda Halo and others versus Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others where 5500 posts of police constables were filled up and recruitment process was challenged on certain irregularities, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the validity of recruitment could not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it shall not be proper to get sample survey of successful and unsuccessful candidates.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court by a catena of judgments warned the statutory authority from time to time that while discharging their statutory and constitutional obligation, they must adhere with the statutory provisions as well as constitutional mandate. The decision taken by the State Government should be fair, just and proper without being influenced by political or vested interest. Needless to say that whenever, a decision is taken or finding is recorded on political motivation or for some extraneous reasons, depriving the citizens from their source of livelihood or from their properties or curtailing liberties, then gradually such actions become counter-productive in due course of time and ultimately in case justice is not done from the Courts, the unscrupulous element and anti-social elements come into picture and peoples takes law into their own hands through these musclemen for redressal of their grievance. This fact may be noticed in many countries where the democracy is taking its last breadth. It is not only the Courts to impart justice. Justice is imparted by executive also in the decision making process. Justice should not only be done but it must seem to be done. This principle is equally applicable to Executives and Legislatures that the decision should not only be taken in just and fair manner but that seems to be taken in just and fair manner without being influenced by extraneous considerations. Once the peoples lose their faith in any wing of the government, then in due course of time, anarchy shall prevail in the society and it shall not be possible to check problem which may arise in such a situation.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, reported in AIR 1975 SC 226 Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi versus Raj Narain observed as under :
"205. Rule of Law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law".
19. Even otherwise, discretion of the government cannot be absolute and unjusticiable. The authorities have to pass the test of reasonableness and the action should not lack bona fide and made a colourable exercise of power. If an order of the State or its instrumentality lacks bona fide, then it shall amount to colourable exercise of power vide AIR 1998 SC 477 Amarnath Ashram Trust Society versus Governor of U.P., 1993(3) SCC 634 Hansraj H. Jain versus State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1980 SC 319 State of Punjab and another versus Gurdial Singh and others.
20. Keeping in view the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge at Allahabad as well as the Division Bench in special appeals (supra) and for the reasons, discussed hereinabove, the impugned orders seem to be violative of statutory provisions, principle of natural justice. The decision has been taken hurriedly depriving the police constables from their source of livelihood. Such action on the part of the authorities is not expected in the society which is governed by the rule of law run by a democratically elected government.
21. In view of the above, the writ petitions succeed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to restore the petitioners in service forthwith with due back wages within a period of one month from today with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law subject to availability of material. The learned counsel for the respondents shall communicate the order, passed by this Court to the Principal Secretary, Home and the Director General of Police forthwith for compliance.
The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Alert