Holding

Confessions made to police are admissible in departmental enquiries, and the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable under proviso (b) of Article 311(2) is final and not subject to interference absent malafide conduct.

Summary

Head Constable Kuldip Singh was dismissed from the Punjab Police without a departmental enquiry under proviso (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry because witnesses feared for their lives. The dismissal was based primarily on a confession he made to police officers during interrogation, in which he admitted links with terrorists and supplying them information. Singh challenged the dismissal, arguing that the confession was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and that no other material justified dismissal without an enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to departmental enquiries, so the confession was admissible if deemed voluntary, and that the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction that an enquiry was not reasonably practicable is final under Article 311(3) unless shown to be malafide. The Court found no reason to disturb the High Court’s finding that sufficient material existed to invoke the proviso and that the punishment was not excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the dismissal upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a confession made to police officers, inadmissible under the Evidence Act, can be used as evidence in a departmental enquiry.
Whether the disciplinary authority may dispense with a departmental enquiry under proviso (b) of Article 311(2) on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable.
Whether the authority’s satisfaction that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable is subject to judicial review.
Whether dismissal of a government servant without an enquiry, based solely on such a confession, is valid.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 311(2)(b), s. Article 311(3)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 25, s. 26

Subjects

Article 311departmental enquiryconfession admissibilitydisciplinary dismissaljudicial reviewPunjab Police ActEvidence Actterrorismpublic servant law

Judgment

KULDIP SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

SEPTEMBER 16, 1996

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORANAN, JJ.) B

• Service Law-Punjab Police Act 1861 :

Punjab Police Rules, 1934-Section 7-Rules 16.1and16.24-Powerof
dismissal and enquiry. C

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311(2)(b)(3)-Condition precedent
to dispensing with the enquiry-Satisfaction of the disciplina1y authority
recorded on proper assessment of facts and circumstances-The decision of
the disciplinary authority is final but subject to judicial review-The decision D
of the disciplinary authority, confinned by the appellate auth01ity not to hold
enquiry against the appellant, helping the te"orists-High Court satisfied with
the view-Supreme Court would not interfere and take a different view.

Evidence Act, 187~Sections 25 and 26-Confessions made to the
police officer-Relevancy in departmental enquiry-If accepted as voluntary E
and tJUe by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority-Supreme Court
would not go into the question-Strict rules of evidence not applicable to
departmental enquiry-Principles of natural justice and rules governing the
enquiry must be followed.
F
The Senior Superintendent of Police, invoking proviso(b) of Article
311(2) of the Constitution and the Punjab Police Rule 16.1 read with
Section 7 of the Punjab Police Act, 1861, dismissed the appellant, a Head
Constable, who was helping the terrorists. The satisfaction of the Senior
Superintendent of Police for not holding the enquiry was that the cir·
cumstances were such that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an G
enquiry against the appellant, as no witness was likely to depose against
him due to fear of life. The appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected
by the Inspector General of Police. The High Court also rejected his appeal
holding that there were sufficient materials before the disciplinary
authority for not holding the enquiry. The appellant moved this court H
339
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A challenging that except the confession made to the police during interroga-
tion, there was no other material against him warranting his dismissal and
that he was acquitted by the Designated Court.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

B HELD : 1. Though according to sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
Act, the confession made before or while in custody of a police officer is
not admissible, it is well-settled that these rules do not apply to
departmental enquiry. Even the evidence recovered or discovered as a
result of illegal search is relevant in India departing from the law of United
C States. The fact that the confession was made to the police, may not be of
much consequence for the reason that strict rules of evidence do not apply
to the departmental enquiry and as such the appellant's confession is
relevant. In departmental enquiry, it would perhaps be permissible for the
authorities to prove that the appellant did make such a confession during
the course of interrogation and it would be for the disciplinary authority
D to decide whether it was voluntary or not. The disciplinary authority is
entitled to act upon such statement if it is voluntary and true. Once the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority conclude that the
confession made by the appellant is voluntary, this court would not go into
the question of its being voluntary or not. [345-H]
E
2. Undoubtedly, there is no other material except the confesion of the
appellant. There is also the fact that the appellant was acquitted by the
designated court, however, the High Court has opined that there were
en~ugh materials before the appropriate authority upon which it could
come to a reasonable conclusion that it was not reasonable practicable to
F hold an enquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 of the
constitution. Nothing has been shown to justify the taking of a contrary
view at this stage. Once proviso(b) of Article 311(2) is held to have been
validly invoked, the only ground left with the concerned Govt. servant is
to impugn the punishment actually awarded as being unwarranted. In the
G instant case, the punishment awarded to the appellant cannot be said to
be excessive. [346-B-E]

KuTUma v. The Queen, (1955) A.C. 197, referred to.

Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, [1985) Suppl. 2 SCR 131; Pooran
H Mal v. Director of Insvection, [1974) 1 SCC 345; State of Mysore v. S.S.
KULDIP SINGH v. STAIB (B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 341

Makapur, AIR (1963) SC 375 and The State of Assam v. S.K Dass, AIR A ,
(1970) SC 255, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12313 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.93 of the Punjab & B
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14895 of 1993.

R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant.

Manoj Swarup for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.

This appeal arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appel- D
lant was a Head Constable of Police in the service of the Punjab Govern-
ment. He has been dismissed from service without holding an enquiry as
contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The
Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Tarn Taran has invoked proviso
(b) appended to the said clause (2), dispensing with the enquiry on the E
ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry in the
case of the appellant. The order of dismissal is dated February 21, 1992.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Inspector
General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar on June 22, 1993. The order
or dismissal and the appellate order affirming it were questioned by .the
appellant by way of a writ petition in the punjab and Haryana High Court F
which too has failed, as stated above. The order of dismissal passed by the
S.S.P., Tarn Taran, reads:

"Whereas Head Constable Kuldip Singh No. 2874!fT of this dis-
trict has been found indulging in activities prejudicial to the effi- G
cient functioning of the Police force. He has very close. links with
extremists and helping them by providing information of the Police
Department.

And whereas it is established that Head Constable Kuldip
Singh No. 2874!fT is mixed up with the extremists and had been H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A found responsible for supplying information relating to the Police
Department.

And whereas in the interest of maintenance of law and general
administration and retention of Head Constable Kuldip Singh No.
2874ffT of Police District Tarn Taran is considered undesirable.
B
And whereas I am satisfied that the circumstances of the case
such that if is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the
manner provided in Punjab Police Rules 16.24 because no witness
is likely to depose against him due to fear of injury of his Iife.
c Now, therefore, I Ajit Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police,
Tarn in exercise of the powers vested in me by virtue of the
provisions of the Punjab Police Rules 16.1 read with Section 7 of
the Police Act, 1861 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India,
do hereby dismiss from service the Head Constable Kuldip Singh
D No. 2874ffT with effect from 21.2.1992."

On Appeal, the appellate authority found that the appellant did have
links with the terrorists and was mixed up with them and he was supplying
secret information of the police department to terrorists which was creating
E hindrance in the smooth functioning of the police department. The appel-
late authority also found that it was impossible to conduct an enquiry
against the appellant because nobody would come forward to depose
against such "militant police official". The appellate authority also referred
to the fact that the appellant was interrogated in a case, FIR No. 210/90,
and that during interrogation he admitted that he was having links with
F Major Singh Shahid and Sital Singh Jakhar and was working for them. It
further stated in its order that the appellant was preparing to murder some
senior police officers while taking advantage of his position.

The High Court found that the reasons given by the S.S.P. for
G dispensing with the enquiry were acceptable and that the satisfaction
recorded by him cannot be said to be unjustified or unwarranted. The High
Court was also of the opinion that there was sufficient material before the
disciplinary authority to conclude that it was not expedient to hold a
regular enquiry against the appellant.

H In this appeal, it is contended by Sri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the
KULDIPSINGHv. STATE[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 343

appellant, that except the alleged admission/confession of the appellant made A
before the police officers during interrogation in FIR No. 219/90, there is no
other material upon which the disciplinary authority could have concluded
that the dismissal of the appellant was warranted. He submitte4 that such an
admission/confession is inadmissible in law and, therefore, cannot constitute
the basis of an order of dismissal. The learned counsel also submitted that no
B
material has been placed by the disciplinary authority before the court upon
which it was satisfied that it was not expedient to hold a disciplinary enquiry
against the appellant as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311. The
learned counsel also brought to our notice that though the appellant was
prosecuted and tried before the designated court, Amritsar under Terrorists
and Disruptive Activities Act in connection with the crime in FIR No. 219/90, c
he has been acquitted by the said court.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents supported
the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court as also the action of the
authorities. D

At our direction made on April 22, 1996 in this matter, the learned
counsel for the State has produced the original record relating to the
appellant's dismissal along with translated copies of the relevant document.
The first document placed before us by the learned counsel for the State E
J is the copy of the FIR No. 219/90 dated November 24, 1990. It is based
upon the statement of. Head constable Hardev Singh, who was posted as
gunman with Sri Harjit Singh, Superintendent of Police (S.P.) (Opera-
tions). The F.I.R. speaks of the jeep (in which the said S.P. was travelling
along with certain police personnel) being blown up killing the said S.P.
and few other police officials. The next document placed before us is the F
case diary pertaining to the said crime containing the statement of the
appellant, Kuldip Singh. In his statement, Kuldip Singh, did clearly state
about his association with certain named militants, the plot laid by them to
kill Sri Harjit Singh, Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran by placing a
bomb and the manner in which they carried out the said plot. He also G
stated that he and his militant companions planned to plant a bomb in the
office of S.S.P, Tarn Taran but that the police officers came to know of the
said plan, thus foiling their plan. The learned counsel for the State of
Punjab did concede that except the aforesaid statement of admission/con-
fession of the appellant, there was no other material on which the appellant
could be held guilty of conduct warranting dismissal from service. H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Proviso (b) to Article 311(2) says that the enquiry contemplated by
clause (2) need not be held "where the authority empowered to dismiss or
remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to
be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold
such enquiry". Clause (3) of Article 311 expressly provides that "if, in respect
B of any such person as aforesaid, the question arises whether it is reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision
thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to
reduce him in rank shall be final". These provisions have been the subject-
matter of consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of
India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, [1985) Suppl. 2 S.C.R 131. It would be appropriate
C to no tic'? _a few relevant holdings in the said judgment:

"Before denying a government servant his constitutional right to
an enquiry, the first consideration would be whether the conduct
of the concerned government servant is such as justifies the penalty
D of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Once that conclusion
is reached and the condition specified in the relevant clause of the
second proviso is satisfied, that proviso becomes applicable and
the government servant is not entitled to an enquiry (p.205) ..... It
would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry where
an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubor-
E dination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the concerned
government servant is or is not a party to bringing about such an
atmosphere ..... The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry '
· is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority.
Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happen-
F ing. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best Judge of this
That clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary
authority on this question final... ... The finality given to the decision
of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon
the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned
(p.270) ....... Where a government servant is dismissed, removed or
G reduced in rank by applying clause (b) or an analogous provision
of the service rules and he approaches either the High Court under
Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, the court will interfere
on grounds well established in law for the exercise of power of
judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exer-
H cised. It will consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision
in the service rules was properly applied or not... .. In examining
KULDIP SINGH v. STATE [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 345

the relevancy of the reasons, the court will consider the situation A
which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the
conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry..... In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the
disciplinary authority, the court will not, however, sit in judgment
a
over them like court of first appeal; (p.273-274)."
B
The judgment also stresses that very often a person dealt with under
any of the three clauses in the second proviso to Article 311(2) has a right
of appeal where the correctness of the decision taken by the aj>prop~iate
authority will be subject to reView - apart, of course, from the remedy of
judicial review provided in the Constitution. C

Now coming to the main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, it is true that a confession or admission of guilt made by a person
accused of an offence before, or while in the custody of, a police officer is
not admissible in a court of law according to Sections 25 and 26 of
Evidence Act but it is equally well settled that these rules of evidence do D
not apply to departmental enquiries - See State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur,
A.LR. (1963) S.C. 375 and State of Assam v. S.K. Das, A.LR. (1970) S.C.
1255 - wherein the only test is compliance with the principles of natural
justice - and, of course, compliance with the rules governing the enquiries,
if any. In this context, it is well to remember that in India, evidence
recovered or discovered as a result of an illegal search is held relevant E
departing from the law in the United States. We may refer to the following
observations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kuntma v.
11ie Queen, (1955) A.C. 197, quoted approvingly by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, [1974] 1 S.C.C. 345
at 256:
F
"The test to be applied, both in civil and in criminal cases, in
considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant
to the matters in issue. If it is, it admissible, and the Court is not
concemed with how it was obtained.''
G
In this sense, if the appellant's confession is relevant, the fact that it
was made to the police or while in the custody of the police may not be of
much consequence for the reason that strict rules of Evidence Act do not
apply to departmentaVdisciplinary enquiries. In a departmental enquiry, it
would perhaps be permissible for the authorities to prove that the appellant
did make such a confession admission during the course of interrogation H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A and it would be for the disciplinary authority to decide whether it is a
voluntary confession/admission or not. If the disciplinary authority comes
to the conclusion that the statement was indeed voluntary and true, he may
well be entitled to act upon the said statement. Here, the authorities say
that they were satisfied about the truth of the appellant's confession. There
is undoubtedly no other material. There is also the fact that the appellant
B has been acquitted by the designated court. We must say that the facts of
this case did present us with a difficult choice. The fact, however, remains
that the High Court has opined that there was enough material before the
appropriate authority upon which it could come to a reasonable conclusion
that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as contemplated
C by clause (2) of Article 311. Nothing has been brought to our notice to
persuade us not to accept the said finding nf the High Court. Even a copy
of the r:ounter filed by the respondents in the High Court is not placed
before us. Once proviso (b) is held to have been validly invoked, the
government servant concerned is left with no legitimate ground to impugn
the action except perhaps to say that the facts said to have been found
D against him do not warrant the punishment actually awarded. So far as the
present case is concerned, if one believes that the confession made by the
appellant was voluntary and true, the punishment awarded cannot be said
to be excessive. The appellant along with some others caused the death of
the Superintendent of Police and a few other police officials. It must be
remembered that we are dealing with a situation obtaining in Punjab during
E the years 1990-91. Moreover, the appellate authority has also agreed with
the disciplinary authority that there were good grounds for coming to the
conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary
enquiry against the appellant and that the appellant was guilty of the crime
confessed by him. There is no allegation of malafides levelled against the
F appellate authority. The disciplinary and the appellate authorities are the
men on the spot and we have no reason to believe that their decision has
not been arrived at fairly. The High Court is also satisfied with the reasons
for which the disiciplinary enquiry was dispensed with. In the face of all
these circumstances, it is not possible for us to take a different view at this
stage. It is not permissible for us to go into the question whether the
G confession made by the appellant is voluntary or not, once it has been
accepted as voluntary by the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority.

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.

H H.K. Appeal dismissed.