On June 22, 1981, IPS probationers at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad, were required to be present at 5.50 a.m. on the field for the ceremonial drill. It was a rainy morning, so the venue was shifted to the Gymnasium Hall. None of the probationers reached there on time. They were all late by 22 minutes, after the rain abated. Among the probationers was Anoop Jaiswal, a young man from Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, who was allotted the Tamil Nadu cadre. He was considered one of the ring leaders responsible for the delay.
An explanation was sought from the probationers. “Dear Sir, In reply to your memo dated 22nd June, 1981, I humbly submit that as for my being late in P.T. by 10. mts., I sincerely regret the lapse. But the second charge that I instigated others to do so is totally baseless and without a single iota of truth. I request you, Sir, to make a thorough enquiry into such an allegation. I never had nor have such plebeian mentality,” wrote Jaiswal.
Academy Director Narendra Prasad, without holding an inquiry into the alleged misconduct, recommended to the Government of India that Jaiswal be discharged from service. The Government of India discharged him on November 5.
Plea to government
Mr. Jaiswal, who was by then married with his second child on the way, represented to the government to reconsider the matter. This time, the Academy Director recommended his reinstatement, but the government rejected it in April 1982. Mr. Jaiswal’s petition challenging the government’s decision was dismissed by the Delhi High Court at the stage of admission in August that year.
Thereafter, he knocked the doors of the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition. He argued that an order terminating his service could not have been passed without an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the relevant rules governing such an inquiry. He also contended that the discharge order was based on conjunctures and surmises.
‘No sign of repentance’
Although explanations were given by the other probationers too, “the only ground which ultimately prevailed upon the Director was that the appellant [Jaiswal] had not shown any sign of repentance without informing him that his case would be dealt with leniently if he showed a sign of repentance,” the Supreme Court noted. However, in the very first reply he gave to the Director, Mr. Jaiswal had stated, “I sincerely regret the lapse.”
“On going through the above record before the Court and taking into account all the attendant circumstances, we are satisfied that the Director wished to make the case of the appellant an example for others, including those other probationers who were similarly situated so that they may learn a lesson therefrom,” said the Bench of Justices E. S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra.
The court held that the impugned discharge order amounts to termination of service by way of punishment and an inquiry should have been held in accordance with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Since this had not been done, the order is liable to be struck down. “We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and the impugned order dated November 5, 1981, discharging the appellant from service. The appellant should now be reinstated in service with the same rank and seniority he was entitled to before the impugned order was passed as if it had not been passed at all. He is also entitled to all consequential benefits, including the appropriate year of allotment and the arrears of salary and allowances up to the date of his reinstatement,” the Supreme Court said.
Turning point
“That was a turning point in his life,” writes author V. Sudarshan, in his preface to the book Tuticorin: Adventure in Tamil Nadu’s Crime Capital, which is based on Mr. Jaiswal’s experience from January 1981, when he joined the National Police Academy, to 1989, the end of his posting as the Superintendent of Police in Thoothukudi. “Jaiswal was standing in the courtroom. Justice Venkataramiah emphasised what the judgement meant. He said, and every word rings clearly even now, ‘The Government took away your job. It is the law of the land and the Constitution of India which is restoring it back to you. It is a lease given by Law to you. We hope you live up to that lease. Your loyalty shall ever remain to the law of the land and the Constitution of India and not to any people, party or the Government’,” narrates Mr. Sudarshan.
In the landmark verdict, the judges wrote, “The appellant had to face this case just at the commencement of his career. We have allowed his claim in the name of the Constitution. This should help him to regain his spirit and also encourage him to turn out to be a public servant in the true sense of that expression.”
To this day, the Anoop Jaiswal vs Government of India case is cited by various courts while dealing with similar cases of termination from service without inquiry.
Published - September 24, 2024 11:37 pm IST
