M.L. Singhal, J.

1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Balwinder Singh has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quasing order dated 22.1.1991 Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No,5 (Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Punjab, Patiala) whereby his services were terminated after dispensing with the holding of an inquiry in view of the proviso 2(b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and also order dated 30.10.1990 Annexure P-2 whereby his appeal was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab. Patiala. He has further prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in view of his acquittal by the criminal court and grant him all the consequential benefits towards seniority, arrears of salary, etc.

2. Facts:--Petitioner was constable appointed in Government Railway Police on 20.1.1991. Case was registered under section 379/409,120B IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in short TADA) against him along with HC Sukhdev Singh No.670/GRP and Constable Ajaib Singh No. 1203/GRI at Police Station GRP, Amritsar. On account of the registration of that case, his services and the services of HC Sukhdev Singh and constable Ajaib Singh were terminated by respondent No. 5 vide order No. 51-58/ST/AIG dated 22.1.1991 by dispensing with the holding of inquiry inview of the provisions of Article 311(2) proviso 2(b) of the Constitution of India. He and others filed appeal to respondent No.4. Appeals of HC Sukhdev Singh and constable Ajaib Singh were accepted and they were reinstated into service by Respondent No.4 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 30.10.1991. After trial by the Additional Judge Designated Court, Amritsar (designated to try cases under the TADA Act), he was acquitted vide order dated 17.11.1992. It is stated that there was no evidence against him worth the name and that was why, no evidence could be put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and he was acquitted. On his acquittal, he became entitled to reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. Respondents, however, did not reinstate him into service. He served legal notice Annexure P-3 upon the respondents calling upon them to accept that he had been unjustly and unlawfully dismissed from service and to reinstate him into service with the consequential benefits. HC Sukhdev Singh and constable Ajaib Singh were taken back in service. If they could be taken back in service, he should also have been taken back in service as he should have been given the same treatment which had been given to them as they were accused in the same criminal case.

3. Respondents contested this writ petition. It was urged that on 19.1.1991, a special track patrol party was sent from GRPS Amritsar vide DDR No.37 along with special patrol engine on Amritsar-Beas section at 7.30 PM The patrolling party consisted of 6 members namely Sukhdev Singh, constable Ajaib Singh, Constable Balwinder Singh, Constable Sharanjit Singh, Constable Hardip Singh and PHG Manohar Lal. One LMG with 8 magazines filled with 200 cartridges was issued to constable Ajaib Singh and constable Balwinder Singh was deputed as helper of constable Ajaib Singh to take care of the said fire arm and ammunition. One member each of the remaining patrol party was issued one rifle of .303 bore each and 50 cartridges each. Constable Sharanjit Singh was issued one rifle of .303 bore and 46 cartridges. Special patrol engine moved from Amritsar at about 8 PM for Beas. It stopped Butari Railway station for about 1-1/2 hours to clear the traffic. It returned from Beas at .55 hours.

4. It again moved towards Beas at 1.30 AM on second trip. After having round of Dhilwan Railway Station it reached back at Amritsar about 2.45 AM on 20.1.1991 and reported the loss of arms and ammunition i.e. one LMG with 8 magazines filled with 200 cartridges and one .303 bore rifle with 5 cartridges. Special track patrolling remained alert upto 9 PM at Railway Station, Butari where they went asleep. The special engine halted at that place upto 10.30 PM. They did not check their arms and ammunition and continued sleeping. At this stage, the holding over of the arms to the terrorists was master minded by constable Sukhwinder Singh with the help of Balwinder Singh.

5. It was urged by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service after dispensing with the holding of regular departmental inquiry as no regular departmental inquiry was possible. Appeals filed by HC Sukhdev Singh and constable Ajaib Singh were accepted and departmental inquiry was ordered against them. After departmental inquiry, they were held guilty and 5 years approved service of HC Sukhdev Singh and seven years approved service of Constable Ajaib Singh was forfeited with permanent effect. So far as constable Sukhwinder Singh and the petitioner are concerned, their case was different as they had master minded the handing over of the fire arms to the terrorists. Misconduct imputed to the petitioner did call for the dispensation of the holding of the regular inquiry by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2) proviso 2(b) of the Constitution of India.

6. It was a case under section 379/409, 120B IPC read with Section 3/4 TADA Act registered against HC Sukhdev Singh and constables Ajaib Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and the petitioner. When evidence could be led in the criminal case, why could not evidence be led at the departmental inquiry against HC Sukhdev Singh and constable Ajaib Singh evidence could be led, why could not evidence be led at the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and constable Sukhwinder Singh No cogent reason has been given by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala for dispensing with the holding of regular inquiry by invoking proviso 2(b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. When the petitioners livelihood was to be snatched from him, the provisions of Article 311(2) proviso 2(b) which are very drastic in character should have been brought into play but only after the exercise of great circumspection. This proviso has been introduced in public interest and therefore, has to be strictly applied.

7. I, therefore, do not see any reason why the holding of regular inquiry should have been dispensed with by invoking Article 311(2) proviso 2(b) of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are set aside so far as they concern the petitioner. Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service. Respondents are directed to put him back in service. He will be given all the consequential benefits namely, seniority, arrears of salary etc. Respondents are free to hold regular inquiry against the petitioner under Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with the relevant Punjab Civil Services Rules/Police Rules.