The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently set aside the disciplinary action taken against a Haryana Police Officer accused of demanding a bribe to settle a drug case. The court expressed concerns over the biased nature of the investigation and referred the matter to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for further examination.
Case Background
The case revolved around Head Constable Joginder Singh, who was accused of demanding a sum of ₹20 lakhs to settle a case involving the recovery of 10 kg of ganja from a house. According to the complaint, the matter was settled for ₹16 lakhs, with ₹13 lakhs paid on the same day and ₹3 lakhs scheduled to be paid later. However, the complainant decided not to pay the remaining amount and sought to expose the officer.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed:
"As the respondent by way of affidavit has expressed its inability to proceed with respect to the recovery of ganja and payment of Rs. 13,00,000/-, this Court finds it appropriate to refer the matter to the Additional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh, to examine the question of recovery of 10 kg ganja as well as payment of Rs. 13,00,000."
Court Observations on the Investigation
The court noted that the authorities had failed to take necessary action under the NDPS Act or the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against the complainant and her accomplice, despite their admission of possessing ganja and making the alleged bribe payment.
Read Also:- NET Qualification Mandatory for Assistant Professor and Extension Lecturer: Punjab & Haryana High Court
"The respondent has taken allegations of the complainant very casually, though they were very serious. There is nothing on record disclosing the source of information of DSP. The version of DSP/source report was para materia with statements made by the complainant and her accomplice during the course of inquiry."
Flaws in the Disciplinary Action
Joginder Singh challenged the order of punishment, which involved the forfeiture of three increments with permanent effect. The High Court, after reviewing the case, found significant inconsistencies in the disciplinary proceedings.
The court highlighted:
"Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of 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."
Read Also:- Punjab Girls Forced to Drop Out Due to Distant Schools: High Court Demands Action from State Government
Justice Bansal emphasized that the Appellate Authority failed to provide a reasoned order, as required under Rule 16.31 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Court’s Decision and Referral to NCB
In light of these discrepancies, the High Court set aside the orders of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisionary authorities. The case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the court directed the registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Additional Director of the NCB, Chandigarh, to ensure a thorough investigation into the matter.
"As the authorities have miserably failed to act as quasi-judicial authorities, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner."
Mr. Mohinder Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others
