Gursher Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(1)

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
IN THE
B AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
H


CWP-878-2025 (O&M)

gh Sandhu
Gursher Sing
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punj
ab & others
...Respondents

Sr.
No.
Parti
iculars
Details
1. The d
2. The d
3. The d
webs
4. Whet
prono
5. The d
judgm
date when the judgment is reserv
date when the judgment is prono
date when the judgment is upload
ved 25.08.2026
unced 01.09.2026
ded on the 02.09.2026
ite
ther only operative part of the ju
udgment is
Full
ounced
ounced or full judgment is prono
delay, if any, of the pronounceme
ment, and reasons thereof
ent of full N.A.

AMIT KUMAR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NA

Present:







Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advoc
Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, M
Mr. Edward George Masih, Adv
cate, assisted by
Mr. Gaurav Jagota and
vocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Addl. AG, Punj
Ms. Anisha, Mr. Amitoj Bir Sing
Mr. Gurvishwraj Singh, Advoca
jab, assisted by
gh, Ms. Sakshi Sehgal and
ates, for the respondents.
NAMIT KU
UMAR, J.

1.
The present petition has been
n filed by the petitioner under
r
Articles 226
of the Constitution of India, seek
king the following reliefs:
“i. a writ in the nature of Cer
rtiorari quashing the order dated
d
02.01.2025 (Annexure P-2
6) vide which the services of the
e
petitioner have been dism
missed from the post of DSP by
y
invoking the provisions/p
powers conferred under Article
e
311(2)(b) in a completely
illegal and arbitrary manner and
d
without taking into consi
ideration the fact that the said
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(2)

provision could not have b
been invoked, keeping in view the
e
fact that departmental/discip
iplinary proceedings already stood
d
initiated against the peti
itioner and also being in total
l
contravention of the provis
ions of law as settled including in
n
Union Of India And Anoth
her vs Tulsiram Patel And Others
s
reported as 1985 (2) SLR 5
576 and the said order of dismissal
l
also wrongly recorded that
t this Hon’ble Court in CWP-PIL-
-
93-2023 has already conclu
uded that the petitioner facilitated
d
recording of an interview
w of Lawrence Bishnoi which is
s
factually incorrect and the o
order being completely perverse to
o
the settled provisions of law
w.
ii. to issue an appropriate wr
rit, order or direction including a
a
writ in the nature of Manda
amus directing the Respondents to
o
comply with the provisions
s of Rule 8 of The Punjab Civil
l
Services (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1970 as also the
e
procedure mandated under
r Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police
e
Rules, 1934 and complyin
ng with the Principles of natural
l
justice as well specially k
keeping in view the fact that the
e
petitioner has repeatedly a
approached the Respondents vide
e
representation dated 15.
12.2024 (Annexure P-22) and
d
18.12.2024 (Annexure P-2
24) to grant him opportunity of
f
hearing as also to provide
documents so as to give effective
e
reply to the show cause n
notice as well as the Articles of
f
charges/charge sheet.
iii. to issue any other appropri
iate writ, order or direction which
h
this Hon'ble Court may de
eem fit and proper in the peculiar
r
facts and circumstances of t
the present case.”

Briefly stated, the facts of the ca
2.
ase, as have been pleaded in the
e
petition, are
that the petitioner initially joi
ined the Border Security Force
e
(BSF) as A
Assistant Commandant on 19.
11.2012 and served there till
l
17.06.2015.
During his tenure in BSF, h
he was deployed at the Indo-
-
Bangladesh B
Border from 17.12.2013 till 17.0
06.2015 and was also posted on
n
election duty
y in Jammu and Kashmir Assemb
bly Elections during November-
-
December, 2
014.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(3)

Pursuant to an advertisement
3.
issued by the Punjab Public
c
Service Com
mmission (PPSC) in the year 20
013, the petitioner was selected
d
and appointe
ed to the post of Deputy Superin
ntendent of Police (DSP) in the
e
Punjab Polic
ce on the recommendation of
f the PPSC, vide order dated
d
16.05.2016 (
Annexure P-2). Upon his select
tion, the petitioner submitted his
s
charge report
t on 30.05.2016 for undergoing
basic training at PPA, Phillaur.
.
In the year
2018, he was transferred as D
DSP (Headquarters), Mohali. In
n
2019, he wa
as transferred as DSP, Sub Div
vision, Amloh and thereafter as
s
DSP, Mohali
i (City-1). Vide order dated 17.0
07.2022 (Annexure P-3), he was
s
transferred as
s DSP (Detective), SAS Nagar.
4.
According to the petitioner, afte
er the murder of Punjabi Singer,
,
namely, Sub
hdeep Singh Sidhu (known as
Sidhu Moosewala), a particular
r
gang (known
n as Lawrence Bishnoi) was proj
jected on social media as having
g
claimed resp
ponsibility for the murder. At
that point of time, Lawrence
e
Bishnoi was
lodged in Tihar Jail. Since he w
was required for investigation in
n
FIR No.103
dated 29.05.2022 registered at
Police Station City-1, Mansa, a
a
Special Inve
estigation Team (SIT) was
constituted, vide order dated
d
01.06.2022 (
(Annexure P-4) under the overa
all supervision of the Additional
l
Director Gen
neral of Police, Anti-Gangster Ta
ask Force (AGTF).
5.
The SIT, supervised by the th
en ADGP (AGTF), along with
h
Mansa Polic
ce brought Lawrence Bishnoi f
from Tihar Jail to Mansa and
d
thereafter ke
pt him in the custody at CIA S
Staff, Mohali (Camp at Kharar).
.
The petitione
er asserts that the entire security
y was supervised by the ADGP
P
(AGTF) and
d for the entire duration of aro
ound 6 months, the same was
s
supervised b
by them. According to the peti
itioner, he had no role either in
n
bringing Law
wrence Bishnoi to Punjab or in
n overseeing his stay while in
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(4)

CIA Staff, Mohali and he was n
custody at C
never an enquiring/investigating
g
officer in any
y case against Lawrence Bishnoi
i.
6.
It is further the case of the p
petitioner that when Lawrence
e
Bishnoi was
kept at CIA Staff, Kharar, a que
ery was raised by the Bureau of
f
Investigation
n as to why he had been kept the
ere in respect of cases pertaining
g
to other distr
ricts. In response thereto, the the
en ADGP (AGTF) stated to have
e
informed the
e authorities that, at the releva
ant time, the AGTF was newly
y
constituted a
and did not have an indepen
ndent interrogation centre and,
,
therefore, La
awrence Bishnoi was kept at CIA
A Kharar, which was considered
d
as a strategic
c and secure location close to the
headquarters of the AGTF.
7.
It is further the case of the petiti
ioner that he was posted as DSP
P
(Detective),
Mohali, after the death of Moo
sewala and after the transfer of
f
Lawrence Bi
ishnoi. In March, 2023, an inte
erview was telecasted by a news
s
channel, whe
erein Lawrence Bishnoi was in
nterviewed while he was in the
e
custody of Pu
unjab Police. The said interview
w was aired in March, 2023, but
t
the said inter
rview was stated to have been c
conducted much earlier. A two-
-
member Com
mmittee comprising of the then
Director General, STF and the
e
ADGP, Priso
ons, was constituted in March, 2
023, to enquire into the incident
t
and as to how
w the interview had taken place
e while he was in the custody of
f
the Punjab Po
olice.
8.
While the said investigation w
was going on, a public interest
t
litigation bea
aring CWP-PIL-93-2023 titled
‘Court on its own motion Vs.
.
State of Pun
njab & others’ came to be liste
ed pursuant to suo motu notice
e
taken by a
learned Single Judge of this
Court in CRM-M-44786-2023

regarding the
e use of mobile phones inside ja
ail premises by the inmates and
d
as to what st
teps are being taken to curb the
entry of such prohibited items.
.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(5)

e proceedings, the issue as regar
During those
rds murder of Sidhu Moosewala
a
as well as int
terview of Lawrence Bishnoi, w
which was aired in March, 2023,
,
became a ma
atter of adjudication in the said P
PIL. In the said proceedings, an
n
order dated 2
21.12.2023 was passed by the Di
ivision bench after consideration
n
of the report
submitted by the Committee. Fr
rom the report, it transpired that,
,
in fact, not
one but two interviews had be
een conducted. The Committee
e
recommende
ed registration of FIRs in respe
ect of the two interviews. The
e
operative por
rtion of the order dated 21.12.20
23 reads as under:
“In view of the above, w
we deem it appropriate to issue
e
f
following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, i
is directed to immediately register
r
two FIRs with regar
rd to the conduct of two interviews
s
as recommended by
the Special Investigation Team in
n
the police station hav
ving State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of
f the FIRs shall be carried out by
y
the Special Invest
tigation Team headed by Mr.

Prabodh Kumar, IPS
S, DG, Human Rights Commission.

The other members
s of the SIT would include Dr.

S.Rahul, IPS and Ms
Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG,

Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the S
SIT would be at liberty to seek
k
assistance of any oth
her officer or of any other kind, on
n
his making a reques
st, the DGP, Punjab shall provide
e
all necessary help an
nd assistance to him. A copy of the
e
report dated 11.12.2
2023 and the relevant record shall
l
be handed over to th
he Head of the SIT. The SIT shall
l
conclude the invest
tigation expeditiously and file a
a
status report before
this Court within a period of two
o
months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is f
further directed:
(a) to get the UR
RLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to
o
both t
the said interviews
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(6)

removed/block
ked/disable/restrict from all social
l
media platform
ms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure th
at the Press channel, where the
e
said intervi
ew is hosted, removes the
e
URLs/weblink
ks/videos from all its news /social
l
media platform
ms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the s
said interviews are discovered by
y
police author
rities to be existing on any social
l
media platfor
rm in future, the same be get
t
removed with
immediate effect;
(d) to direct the
intermediary to preserve all the
e
information a
associated relating to the offending
g
content for u
use in investigation, in line with
h
Rule 3(1) (g) o
of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the
e search engines Google Search,

Yahoo Search
h, Microsoft Bing to globally de-
-
index and der
reference from their search results
s
the afore-sai
id interviews and their related
d
contents as id
dentified by its web URL and image
e
URL.
(f) All the conce
erned intermediaries be informed
d
that noncom
mpliance with the foregoing
g
directions wo
uld make the non-complaint party
y
liable to forfe
eit the exemption, if any, available
e
to it general
lly under Section 79 (1) of the
e
I.T.Act and a
as specified by Rule 7 of 2021
1
Rules: and s
shall make such entity and its
s
officers liable
e for action as mandated by section
n
85 of the I.T.A
Act.
(g) The ADGP, P
Prisons, Punjab shall file a status
s
report with
regard to the timelines for
r
installation of
f jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon
n
mesh, X-ray
y body scanners etc. for
r
augmentation
of jail security.”

In compliance with the afore
9.
esaid order, the Punjab Police
e
registered FI
IR No.0001 dated 05.01.2024
at Police Station Punjab State
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(7)

Nagar, under Sections 384, 201
Crime, SAS
, 202, 506, 116, 120-B IPC and
d
Section 52-A
A(1) of the Prisons (Punjab Am
mendment) Act, 2011 and FIR
R
No.02 dated
06.01.2024.
10.
It is the case of the petitioner th
hat he was neither named in the
e
said FIR nor
r has been arrayed either as an a
accused or as a suspect till date.
.
Pursuant to t
the order dated 21.12.2023, a Sp
pecial Investigation Team (SIT)
)
was constitu
uted. Since, at that time, the
petitioner was posted as DSP
P
(Special Bran
nch & Criminal Intelligence), SA
AS Nagar, he was also called by
y
the SIT in co
onnection with the investigation
n. The petitioner duly appeared
d
before the SI
IT and responded to all the quer
ries put to him. Thereafter, vide
e
order dated 0
03.08.2024 (Annexure P-8), the
petitioner was transferred from
m
th
ence), SAS Nagar to DSP, 9
h

DSP (Specia
al Branch & Criminal Intellige
Battalion, Pu
unjab Armed Police, Amritsar.
. The petitioner joined at the
e
transferred p
place and requested for medical
leave for 14 days due to injury
y
and having b
been recommended bed rest fo
or two weeks by the PGIMER,
,
Chandigarh,
vide request dated 12.09.2024 (A
Annexure P-10).
11.
On the same very day i.e. 12.0
9.2024, an interim status report
t
was submitte
ed by the SIT, which stated that
t while conducting investigation
n
in FIR No.0
02 dated 06.01.2024, it had tran
nspired that interviewee was in
n
Central Jail,
Jaipur, when the interview was c
conducted and it was also stated
d
that the fi
irst interview was conducted
d on the night intervening
g
03/04.09.202
22 and the interviewee was in the
e premises of CIA Staff, Kharar.
.
Learned Adv
vocate General, Punjab, upon in
nstructions from the competent
t
authority, su
ubmitted that disciplinary action
n would be initiated against the
e
officers, who
o were In-charge of CIA Staff as
s well as the supervisory officers
s
in accordanc
e with law. The Court also opin
ned that “ We hope and trust that
t
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(8)

d not be confined to the lower
action would
level officials but extend to the
e
higher office
ers who had supervisory jurisd
diction over CIA Staff, Kharar
r
including the
e then SSP, who was the Head
of the District Police when the
e
interview wa
as conducted. ”
12.
In this background, the petitio
oner was issued a show cause
e
notice dated
19.09.2024 (Annexure P-11),
alleging that premises of CIA
A
Staff, Khara
ar fell within the jurisdiction o
of Police District SAS Nagar,
,
Mohali and t
that a dreaded gangster in police
e custody had been able to give
e
an interview,
, which pointed to a major brea
ak-down of command and to lax
x
standards of
discipline. It was alleged that th
he CIA Staff comes under direct
t
control of th
he Deputy Superintendent of Po
lice (Investigation), SAS Nagar
r
and that lack
k of adequate supervision on his
s part had allowed the interview
w
to happen, w
which has in turn severely d
dented the image of the State
e
Government.
. The petitioner was called u
upon to show cause as to why
y
disciplinary p
proceedings should not be initiat
ted against him and was given 7
7
days time to
submit his reply.
13.
The petitioner, in response to th
he aforesaid show cause notice,
,
submitted a d
detailed reply dated 25.09.2024
(Annexure P-12), wherein inter
r
alia it was st
tated that when Lawrence Bishn
noi was kept in the premises of
f
CIA Staff, K
Kharar, the inner security of Law
wrence Bishnoi was entrusted to
o
and supervis
sed by AGTF, which had dep
ployed SOG Commandos and
d
officers of A
AGTF for his inner security and t
the petitioner had no role to play
y
in supervisin
ng the inner security of Lawrence
e Bishnoi and the CIA was only
y
entrusted wit
th the security of the outer cord
don of the campus as well as for
r
ensuring his
security during transit, which th
he CIA carried out diligently and
d
meticulously
y.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(9)

Meanwhile, after investigation i
14.
in FIR No.01 dated 05.01.2024,
,
a cancellatio
on report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-13) was
s
prepared by
the police. In respect of issue
of investigation with regard to
o
mobile havin
ng been used in the interview
w of Lawrence Bishnoi, it was
s
concluded as
s under:
“Conclusion: During the investig
gation, from the above facts, this
s
f
fact has come to the notice th
at the interview of the accused
d
L
Lawrence Bishnoi got recorded
d on the intervening night of
f
03.09.2022 and 04.09.2022 is of t
the period of his in police custody
y
in C.I.A. Kharar, District S.A.S.
Nagar. In this, the negligence,

carelessness and irregularity of
the police officials towards their
r
duty has been found. In this regar
rd, it is being separately written to
o
the Government of Punjab for takin
ng action.
From the investigation of th
the case, a case under section 506
6
IPC is found to be made out again
nst the accused Lawrence Bishnoi.

This office is not liable for taking
action by the police. Thus, at this
s
stage of the case, the cancellation
report is liable to be prepared and
d
submitted in the Illaqa Court fo
for approval. For getting further
r
action taken against the accused
Lawrence Bishnoi under Section
n
506 IPC, it is directed to pursue th
he same in the Court.
It is also made clear th
hat since in continuation of the
e
interview, Lawrence Bishnoi has
s not committed any cognizable
e
offence, for this reason, no case u
under section 120-B IPC is made
e
out against any police official.
If any other evidence with r
regard to the mobile phone used by
y
L
Lawrence Bishnoi for the interview
w pertaining to this case, comes on
n
the file, then separate supplemen
tary report under section 173 (8)
)
Cr.P.C. will be submitted in the Ho
on'ble Court.
On the basis of the above in
nvestigation of the SIT, vide Rapat
t
N
No.11 dated 08.10.2024, the sectio
ons 384, 201, 202, 116, 120-B and
d
52-A (1) The Prisons (Punjab Am
endment) Act, 2011 are deleted in
n
the FIR. The cancellation report u
under section 173 Cr.P.C. has been
n
p
prepared against the accused L
awrence Bishnoi for the offence
e
under section 506 IPC, which is su
ubmitted for approval. If any other
r
evidence with regard to the mobile
e phone used by Lawrence Bishnoi
i
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(10)

for the interview pertaining to th
f
his case, comes on the file, then
n
separate supplementary report und
der section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. will be
e
submitted in the Hon'ble Court.
Sd/-
Station House Officer
Police station Punjab State Crime
-
r
e
Police station Phase-4 Mohali
i
r
”

e
District S.A.S. Nagar
Dated: 08.10.2024”
15.
Thereafter, the petitioner was is
ssued second show cause notice
dated 14.10.2
2024 (Annexure P-14), wherein
it was alleged that the petitioner
r
had facilitate
ed the recording of interview o
of Lawrence Bishnoi, by being
g
personally p
resent at the premises of CIA
Staff Kharar, during the night
t
intervening 0
03/04.09.2022, while also bein
ng in close and constant touch,
,
both telepho
onically and personally, with t
the interviewee Sh. Jagwinder
r
Patial of AB
BP Sanjha News Channel and t
the misconduct, negligence and
d
dereliction o
of duty on his part had severely
y dented the image of the State
e
Government
and his reply was sought within
n a period of 2 days. In response
e
thereto, the
petitioner submitted an int
terim reply dated 17.10.2024
4
(Annexure P
P-15) and requested the responde
ents for supply of the necessary
y
documents.

16.
While the petitioner was awaitin
ng for the necessary documents,
,
FIR No.33 d
dated 15.10.2024 under Section
ns 419, 465, 467, 468, 477 IPC
C
and Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corru
uption Act, 1988, was registered
d
against the p
petitioner at Police Station Punja
ab State Crime, SAS Nagar, on
n
the allegation
n that he had misused his offici
ial position with an intention to
o
gain monetar
ry benefits by involving himself
in a disputed land and property.

17.
Subsequently, the petitioner, alo
ong with six other officials, was
s
placed under
r suspension, vide suspension ord
der dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(11)

r Rule 4(1)(a) of the Punjab
P-16), under
Civil Services (Punishment &
&
Appeal) Rule
es, 1970. Thereafter, a charge-sh
heet dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure
e
P-17) was is
sued to the petitioner. The peti
tioner, however, asserts that the
e
respondents
merely pasted the covering lett
ter of the charge-sheet, without
t
the complete
e articles of charge/s, outside his
s residential premises i.e. House
e
No.3149, Sec
ctor 39, Chandigarh, which had
been allotted to him during his
s
posting at SA
AS Nagar (Mohali) instead of ef
ffecting service of the complete
e
charge-sheet
at his permanent residential a
address i.e. House No.99, Jyoti
i
Nagar, Jalan
ndhar, as per the current place
e of posting i.e. 9th Battalion,
,
Punjab Arme
ed Police, Amritsar. It is the ca
ase of the petitioner that the said
d
charge-sheet
was not received by the petition
ner though he received covering
g
letter of the
e said charge-sheet categorica
ally mentioning that article of
f
charge/s incl
luding memorandum is of 7 pag
ges, but only first 3 pages were
e
pasted. Ho
owever, he was shocked to
read an article in newspaper
r
‘Hindustan T
Times’, wherein it was stated th
hat the respondents had already
y
recommende
ed the dismissal of the petitione
r by invoking Article 311(2)(b)
)
of the Const
itution and the case has been fo
orwarded to the Chief Minister,
,
Punjab, for h
his approval. The petitioner im
mmediately submitted a detailed
d
representatio
on dated 15.12.2024 (Annexure
P-22) to respondents No.1 & 2,
,
which was re
eceived on 16.12.2024.
18.
On the same very day i.e. 16.1
12.2024, a statement was made
e
before the C
Court in CWP-PIL-93-2023, th
hat the State Government has
s
decided to di
ismiss the petitioner by invokin
ng powers under Article 311 (2)
)
of the Const
itution of India and the recomm
mendation has been made to the
e
PPSC in that
t regard for further action. It w
was also stated before the Court
t
that the depa
artmental action has been initiate
ed under Rule 10 of the All India
a
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(12)

les against the senior officers a
Services Rul
as well and also those officers
s
have been po
osted outside District Mohali an
nd that he shall submit a list of
f
proposed nam
mes, who would conduct the de
epartmental inquiry, in a sealed
d
cover to the C
Court on the next date of hearing
g.
19.
The petitioner, thereafter, sub
bmitted another representation
n
dated 18.12.2
2024 (Annexure P-24) to the C
Chairman, PPSC, Patiala, seeing
g
grant of fair
and reasonable opportunity to hi
im against the recommendations
s
made by the
e State Government to the PP
PSC, for the dismissal of the
e
petitioner wh
hile invoking provisions of Artic
cle 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
.
On 18.12.20
024 (Annexure P-25), the afore
esaid PIL was again listed for
r
hearing befor
re this Court and the following r
elevant order was passed:

“xx xx
xx
Learned Advocate General
l, Punjab has filed an affidavit of
f
the Secretary, Department of Hom
me Affairs which is taken on record.

It is stated in the affidavit that
although an Inquiry Officer was
s
appointed, but they are willing to
o re-consider the matter. Learned
d
A
Advocate General, Punjab has sub
bmitted a panel of retired judges to
o
this Court in a sealed cover. After
going through the material placed
d
in sealed cover, the same is returne
ed back.
The Government shall co
onsider appointing Justice Rajiv
v
N
Narain Raina, Former Judge of th
is Court as the Inquiry Officer. He
e
shall be provided adequate securi
ity and infrastructure by the State
e
Government. The competent autho
ority may pass necessary order in
n
this regard expeditiously. Needl
less to mention that the Inquiry
y
Officer would be suitably remuner
ated.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Nehra,
Senior Advocate is also appointed
d
as Amicus Curiae to assist the Co
ourt. A complete set of paper book
k
be given to him.
List on 16.01.2025.
The SIT shall submit its s
status report on the next date of
f
hearing.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(13)

A photocopy of this order b
be placed on the files of connected
d
cases.”
20.
However, vide order dated 02
.01.2025 (Annexure P-26), the
e
petitioner wa
as dismissed from service while
invoking Clause 2(b) of Article
e
311 of the C
Constitution while dispensing wi
th the enquiry on the ground of
f
non cooperat
tive attitude of the petitioner.
It is the said order, which has
s
been challeng
ged in the present petition.
21.
It is further pleaded that even
after passing of the impugned
d
order of dism
missal on 02.01.2025 (Annexur
re P-26), the Presenting Officer
r
issued letter
dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-
-30), whereby the petitioner and
d
other eight
officers/officials of the Polic
ce Department against whom
m
departmental
l enquiry had been initiated, we
ere called upon to appear before
e
the Enquiry
Officer, namely, Mr. Justice Ra
ajiv Narain Raina, former Judge
e
of this Court
t, on 28.09.2025 at 11.30 AM. T
The said letter dated 23.09.2025
5
reads as unde
er:
“OFFICE OF TH
DIRECTOR GENERAL O
HE
OF POLICE
PUNJAB, CHANDIG
GARH

ADMINISTRATION
N WING
Secret Section-
-4
To
1. Additional Director
Task Force, SAS Nag
2. Additional Director
SAS Nagar.
3. Commissioner of Pol
4. Senior Superintenden
5. Commandant, 9th Ba
6. Commandant, 5th, IR

No.3507-12/Superintendent

Sub: CWP-PIL-93-2023 (O&M)
General of Police, Anti Gangster
gar.
r
General of Police, NRI, Punjab,

lice, Ludhiana.
nt of Police, SAS Nagar.
attalion, PAP, Amritsar.
RB, Amritsar.
t Chandigarh dated 23.09.2025
) and other (Court on its own
b & Ors.) (Regarding department
b Police Officials.
n
motion Vs. State of Punjab
proceedings against Punjab

t
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(14)

Vide State Governmen
nt's letter no. HOME-HM-
-
10ING/27/2024-2H1/375 dated
21.02.2025, Mr. Justice Rajiv
v
N
Narain Raina, Former Judge, Hi
igh Court has been appointed as
s
Inquiry Officer and the undersign
ed (Jaswinder Singh, Supdt./Gr-1,

Secret Section-4, CPO, Punjab) h
has been appointed as Presenting
g
Officer.
2. Regarding subject cited ab
bove, Inquiry Officer Mr. Justice
e
Rajiv Narain Raina, Former Ju
dge, High Court, Punjab Police
e
Officer Institute, Sector 32, Chan
ndigarh has instructed the below
w
mentioned officers/employee to ap
ppear in the meeting to be held on
n
28.09.2025 at 11.30 a.m;
1. Sh. Amandeep Singh Brar
SP/INV, SAS Nagar.
2. Sh. Ajinder Singh, the
ADCP/Hqrs, NRI, Punjab S
3. Sh. Gursher Singh Sandhu
4. Sh. Samar Vaneet, PPS the
now DSP/5th IRB, ASR (Un
5. Sub. Inspr. (LR) Jagatpa
suspension).
6. Sub. Inspr. (LR), Shaganjit
(Under Suspension)
7. Sub. Inspr. Reena, CIA
Suspension)
8. ASI Mukhtiar Singh, No.
Officer (Under Suspension)
9. HC (LR) Om Parkash, No
MHC CIA, Kharar, SAS Na

3. Therefore, you are re
r, the then ADCP/INV, Ldh., now
w
then SP/Hqrs, SAS Nagar now
SAS Nagar.
u, the then DSP (D) SAS Nagar
e then DSP/PBI/EOW, SAS Nagar
nder Suspension)
al Jangu, AGTF, Punjab (under
w
r
r
t Singh, No. 531/W, AGTF, Punjab
b
A, Kharar, SAS Nagar (Under
r
. 511/SAS Nagar the then Duty
y
)
o. 1131/SAS Nagar, the then Night
t
agar (under suspension).
equested to inform the said
d
officers/employees to appear befor
re the Inquiry Officer on fixed date
e
and time and the receipt of this lett
ter be supplied to this office.
Sd/-
Presenting Officer,
Director General of Police, Punjab
-

b

For D
N
No. /Superintendent Chandi
A copy of above is forwarde
and further necessary action:
1. Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Ra
2. Sh. Ravi Kumar, IPS, AIG,
3. Superintendent/Secret Bran
igarh dated: 23.09.2025
ed to following for information
aina, Former Judge, High Court.
Counter Intelligence, Punjab.
nch, CPO, Punjab.
Sd/-
Presenting Officer,
irector General of Police, Punjab”
-

”
For Di

VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(15)

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
22.
submitted an application dated
d
11.10.2025 t
to Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Rain
na, Former Judge of this Court,
,
through his c
counsel seeking a copy of the ch
harge-sheet. In response thereto,
,
as directed b
by the Enquiry Officer, namely,
Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina,
,
former Judge
e of this Court, a copy of the ch
harge-sheet along with copies of
f
the Show Ca
ause Notices dated 19.09.2024 a
and 14.10.2024 were supplied to
o
the petitione
r, vide letter dated 13.10.2025
(Annexure P-31) issued by the
e
Assistant Ins
spector General of Police, Coun
nter Intelligence, Punjab and the
e
petitioner wa
as directed to file his reply by 0
01.11.2025 at 12:00 noon at the
e
Punjab Polic
ce Officers’ Mess, Sector 32, Ch
handigarh. The relevant extract
t
of the said le
tter dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure
e P-31) reads thus:
“2. You moved an applicati
ion on 11.10.2025 before Mr.

Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, Fo
ormer Judge of the High Court
t
and Enquiry Officer, through
your counsel Mr. Gursimran
n
Singh, seeking a copy of the ch
harge sheet. As directed by the
e
Enquiry Officer during the pro
ceedings held on 11.10.2025, a
a
copy of the charge sheet, along
g with copies of the Show Cause
e
N
Notices dated 19.09.2024 and 14
4.10.2024, is enclosed herewith.

You are directed to file your rep
ply by 01.11.2025 at 12:00 noon
n
at the Punjab Police Officers' M
Mess, Sector 32, Chandigarh.”

Consequently, the petitioner (th
23.
hrough virtual mode) along with
h
his counsel
appeared before the Enquiry
y Officer on 01.11.2025 and
d
submitted hi
s reply to the charge-sheet date
ed 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-32).
.
Thereafter,
the enquiry proceedings we
ere adjourned to 06.12.2025,
,
05.03.2026 &
& 14.03.2026 and the petitione
er appeared before the Enquiry
y
Officer even
n on these dates through virtu
ual mode, whereas his counsel
l
appeared phy
ysically.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(16)

When the hearing of the instant
24.
t petition had taken place before
e
a Coordinate
e Bench of this Court on 10.04
4.2026, the following order was
s
passed:
“When confronted with t
the argument that departmental
l
p
proceedings are currently under
rway under the chairmanship of
f
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Raina
a (Retd.), and that dismissing the
e
p
petitioner from service midway th
hrough such proceedings is wholly
y
unjust, unfair, and unconstitution
nal particularly in light of Article
e
311(2) of the Constitution of Ind
dia, learned State counsel sought
t
time to obtain necessary instruc
ctions, citing lack of awareness
s
regarding the pendency of the dis
sciplinary proceedings against the
e
p
petitioner.
On his request, adjourned to
o 22.04.2026.”

Thereafter, the enquiry proceed
25.
dings were held on 03.05.2026
6
and after noti
icing that the petitioner has alrea
ady been dismissed from service
e
while invoki
ing the provisions of Article 31
11(2)(b) of the Constitution by
y
dispensing w
with enquiry as not reasonably
practical and consequently, the
e
enquiry proc
eedings with regard to the petitio
oner were closed by the Enquiry
y
Officer.
26.
Written statement on behalf of
respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5 by
y
way of affid
davit of Mr. Parmdeep Singh, U
Under Secretary, Department of
f
Home Affair
rs, Punjab, has been filed, wher
ein the facts stated hereinabove
e
have not be
een disputed. However, with
regard to dispensing with the
e
enquiry, it ha
as been stated as under:
“8.
That the Special Investigation T
Team (SIT) constituted under the
e
directions of this Hon'ble Court i
in CWP-PIL-93-2023 (O&M) and
d
other connected cases titled as "
"COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
N
V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OR
RS" had concluded that Petitioner
r
f
facilitated the recording of an inte
erview of the Lawrence Bishnoi by
y
a TV Channel while he was in cus
stody of CIA Staff, Kharar. Due to
o
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(17)

the gravity of the matter, the Petiti
ioner was placed under suspension
n
vide order dated 25.10.2024 and a
a charge sheet under rule 8 of the
e
Punjab Civil Services (Punishme
ent and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was
s
issued vide dated 25.10.2024.
9.
That, it was not reasonably pract
ticable to hold an Inquiry into the
e
charge-sheet against the Petitione
er due to non-cooperative attitude
e
of the officer and his unauthorize
ed absence from duty. Respondent
t
no. 4 had apprised of the fact that
Petitioner has evaded all attempts
s
to receive the charge-sheet. In th
he course of these efforts to serve
e
him, when Petitioner continued to
evade receiving charge-sheet, the
e
Commandant, 9th-Battalion, Punja
ab Armed Police (PAP), Amritsar,

arranged for the order to be
affixed at the doorstep of the
e
Petitioner's residence as a mean
ns of ensuring formal service in
n
compliance with procedural req
quirements. The detailed report
t
submitted by Commandant 9th B
Bn, PAP, Amritsar regarding the
e
efforts made to deliver the charge
e-sheet to Petitioner has also been
n
conveyed by the respondent no
o. 4 vide his officer Memo no.

7186/CB-3, dated 08.11.2024. I
It is further submitted that the
e
Petitioner, instead of cooperating
g in the departmental proceedings,

was deliberately obstructing the
departmental proceedings. It is
s
f
further submitted that after caref
ful consideration of the facts and
d
circumstances, the State Gove
ernment was satisfied that the
e
Petitioner has severely tarnished th
he image of the Punjab Police as a
a
result of his misconduct, neglige
ence and dereliction of the duty
y
during the occurrence of the interv
view of Lawrence Bishnoi, while in
n
custody of CIA Kharar. His failure
e to perform his duty properly was
s
a gross violation of the discipline
e and conduct rules of the Punjab
b
Police.
10.
That, for the reasons stated her
reinabove, Regular Departmental
l
Enquiry was dispensed on cogent m
material and regular departmental
l
enquiry has not dispensed with
solely on the 'Ipse dixit' of the
e
concerned competent punishing A
Authority. The condition precedent
t
was satisfied before the action un
nder Article 311 (2)(b) of second
d
p
proviso taken against the Petitione
er is that holding of enquiry is not
t
reasonably practicable in the op
opinion of a reasonable prudent
t
p
person taking a reasonable view of
f the prevailing situation.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(18)

That it is also further submitted th
11.
hat the proper and due procedure
e
of law was followed and case o
of the Petitioner falls within the
e
p
purview of proviso (b) to Article 3
311(2) of the Constitution. Hence,

the Competent Authority has reco
orded the reasons in writing as to
o
why it was not practicably possibl
le to conduct regular departmental
l
enquiry. The Competent Authorit
ty after recording the reasons in
n
writing for dispensing with the enq
quiry also proceeded with an order
r
imposing the penalty. The reaso
ons recorded by the Competent
t
A
Authority are very clear, just a
and not vague and not just the
e
repetition of the language of th
e relevant rules. The Competent
t
A
Authority has followed the relevan
nt guidelines/instruction along with
h
relevant case laws and same
has been strictly adhered and
d
meticulous compliance of the same
e has been made.
12.
That it is further submitted that
special procedure as provided in
n
rule 13 (ii) of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment & Appeal)
)
Rules, 1970 has been followed wh
hich also provides that where the
e
p
punishing authority is satisfied th
he reasons to be recorded by it in
n
writing that it is not reasonably pr
racticable to hold an inquiry in the
e
manner provided in these rules. I
In this regard, the Punjab Public
c
Service Commission was also be
consulted before orders imposing
g
p
penalty. The respondent no. 3
3 vide letter dated 26.12.2024
4
(Annexure R-10) has also concurr
red with the proposal of the State
e
Government against the Petitioner
r and granted approval to dismiss
s
the Petitioner from Government S
Service under Article 311 (2)(b) of
f
the Constitution of India. Therefor
re, the process as prescribed in law
w
was followed before passing th
he dismissal order against the
e
Petitioner.”

27.
In nutshell, the stand of the resp
pondents is that the petitioner did
d
not coopera
ate in the departmental proce
eedings and was deliberately
y
obstructing th
he departmental proceedings and
d under these circumstances, the
e
State Govern
nment was satisfied that the petit
tioner has severely tarnished the
e
image of th
he Punjab Police as a result o
of misconduct, negligence and
d
dereliction o
f duty during occurrence of the
interview of Lawrence Bishnoi
i
while in cust
tody of CIA Staff Kharar and fo
or the aforementioned reasons, a
a
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(19)

artmental enquiry was dispense
regular depa
ed with on cogent material as
s
holding of en
nquiry against the petitioner is no
ot reasonable practicable.
28.
Replication has been filed by t
the petitioner controverting the
e
averments m
made in the written statement filed
d on behalf of respondents No.1,
,
2, 4 & 5.
29.
Learned senior counsel appea
aring for the petitioner, while
e
referring to
the provisions of Rule 8 o
of the Punjab Civil Services
s
(Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (here
einafter referred to as the ‘1970
0
Rules’), as a
also the procedure prescribed u
under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab
b
Police Rules
, 1934 (hereinafter referred to a
as the ‘PPR’), contends that the
e
power of pun
nishment vested in the competen
nt authority is not unfettered, but
t
is circumscr
ribed by the safeguards emb
bodied in Article 311 of the
e
Constitution
of India and the provisions of t
the ‘1970 Rules’ and the ‘PPR’.

It is submitte
ed that dismissal from service c
constitutes a major penalty and,
,
therefore, or
rdinarily cannot be imposed
without conducting a regular
r
departmental
l inquiry in accordance wit
th the prescribed procedure.
.
According t
to learned senior counsel, dis
spensing with such inquiry is
s
permissible o
only in the exceptional circumst
tances specifically contemplated
d
under Article
e 311(2) of the Constitution an
nd the applicable service rules.
.
He, thus, co
ontended that the punishment
of ‘dismissal’ awarded to the
e
petitioner is
a ‘major penalty’ and the com
mpetent authority can award the
e
same after h
holding a regular departmental
inquiry. It is further contended
d
that Article 3
311(2) of the Constitution of Ind
dia contemplates that if a person
n
is a member
r of a civil service of the Union
n or all India Service or a Civil
l
Service of a
State or holds a civil post unde
er the Union or a State, he shall
l
not be dismi
issed or removed or reduced in
rank except after an inquiry in
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(20)

as been informed of the charg
which he ha
ges against him and has been
n
afforded reas
sonable opportunity of being h
heard. He further contends that
t
Clause (b) o
f second proviso provides that w
where the authority empowered
d
to remove a p
person is satisfied for some reas
son to be recorded in writing, to
o
the effect tha
at holding an inquiry is not ‘rea
asonably practicable’, the orders
s
can be passe
ed without adhering to the gen
neral principle contemplated by
y
Article 311(2
2) of the Constitution. It is forc
cefully contended that while the
e
petitioner wa
as placed under suspension, the
reasons as assigned of ‘evasion
n
of service an
nd non-cooperative attitude in
departmental proceedings’ are
e
flimsy. In a
absence of any convincing ma
aterial, exercise of such extra-
-
ordinary pow
wer ignoring the procedure presc
cribed under the above Rules is
s
not permissib
ble otherwise it would amount
to misuse of the power by the
e
competent au
uthority. Learned senior counsel
l further contends that impugned
d
order of dism
missal from service without cond
ducting a departmental inquiry is
s
also arbitrar
ry as the respondents, having
g already initiated disciplinary
y
proceedings
against the petitioner by issu
uing two show-cause notices,
,
followed by
suspension order and thereafter
r issued charge-sheet, could not
t
subsequently
y invoke Article 311(2)(b) of th
he Constitution to dispense with
h
the departme
ental enquiry. He submitted that
t the impugned order is contrary
y
to the law
particularly when no cogent,
contemporaneous and legally
y
sustainable r
reasons have been recorded to
o demonstrate that holding an
n
enquiry again
nst the petitioner had become no
ot reasonably practicable.
30.
Learned senior counsel further
r submitted that the decision to
o
dismiss the p
petitioner had, in fact, already be
een taken, as is evident from the
e
statement of
f the learned Advocate Genera
al recorded in the order dated
d
16.12.2024 p
passed in CWP-PIL-93-2023. H
He submitted that the finding of
f
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(21)

ents that the petitioner had deli
the responde
iberately evaded service of the
e
charge-sheet
and that, in such circumstance
es, holding an enquiry was not
t
reasonably p
practicable, is factually incor
rrect. According to him, the
e
respondents
were fully aware of the pet
itioner's permanent address at
t
Jalandhar, wh
here all other communications h
had admittedly been duly served,
,
whereas the c
charge-sheet was sent to his old
Chandigarh address after he had
d
already been
n transferred therefrom. He, thus
s, submitted that the invocation
n
of Article 3
11(2)(b) of the Constitution is
s contrary to the principles of
f
natural justic
ce and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
n
Union of Ind
dia v. Tulsiram Patel and Othe
ers, (1985) 3 SCC 398; Jaswant
t
Singh v. Sta
ate of Punjab and Ors., (1991)
1 SCC 362; Ex. Const.Chhote
e
Lal v. Union
n of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SC
CC 196; Sudesh Kumar v. State
e
of Haryana a
and Ors., (2005) 11 SCC 525; T
Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab
b
& others, (2
006) 13 SCC 581; Reena Rani
i v. State of Haryana & others,
,
(2012) 10 SC
CC 215 and Risal Singh v. Sta
ate of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC
C
244 .
31.
Per contra, learned State couns
sel submitted that although the
e
petitioner wa
as initially served with two show
w-cause notices dated 19.09.2024
4
(Annexure P
P-11) and 14.10.2024 (Annexu
ure P-14), and was thereafter
r
placed unde
er suspension and issued a c
charge-sheet dated 25.10.2024
4
(Annexure P
P-17), but he failed to coo
operate with the disciplinary
y
proceedings
and deliberately evaded servic
ce of the charge-sheet. It was,
,
therefore, co
ontended that, keeping in view
w the gravity of the allegations
s
levelled aga
inst the petitioner and upon b
being satisfied that it was not
t
reasonably pr
racticable to hold a regular depa
artmental enquiry, the competent
t
authority wa
as empowered to invoke Article
e 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(22)

te counsel further submitted that
Learned Stat
the satisfaction recorded by the
e
competent a
authority was based upon the
conduct of the petitioner and,
,
therefore, cou
uld not be termed arbitrary or wi
ithout jurisdiction. It was further
r
submitted tha
at the impugned order dated 02.
.01.2025, having been passed in
n
exercise of
the constitutional power unde
er Article 311(2)(b), does not
t
warrant inter
rference by this Court. In supp
port of his contentions, learned
d
State counse
el has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
e
Court in Tuls
siram Patel’s case (supra) .
32.
I have heard learned counsel fo
or the parties and have perused
d
the record wi
ith their able assistance.
33.
In the case at hand, since the or
rder of dismissal of the appellant
t
has been pas
sed in exercise of the power und
der clause (b) of second proviso
o
to Article 31
1(2) of Constitution of India, th
he said provision is relevant to
o
understand it
ts ambit and scope, hence, reprod
duced as under:
“
311. Dismissal, removal or r
reduction in rank of persons
s
employed in civil capacities
s under the Union or a State –
(1) No person who is a
a member of a civil service of the
e
Union or an all India servi
ice or a civil service of a State or
r
holds a civil post under
the Union or a State shall be
e
dismissed or removed by a
a authority subordinate to that by
y
which he was appointed.
(2) No such person as
aforesaid shall be dismissed or
r
removed or reduced in rank
k except after an inquiry in which
h
he has been informed of th
he charges against him and given
n
a reasonable opportunity o
of being heard in respect of those
e
charges ;
Provided that where it is
proposed after such inquiry, to
o
impose upon him any suc
ch penalty, such penalty may be
e
imposed on the basis of th
he evidence adduced during such
h
inquiry and it shall not be n
necessary to give such person any
y
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(23)

opportunity of making
representation on the penalty
y
proposed:
Provided further that this cl
lause shall not apply-
(a) where a pers
son is dismissed or removed or
r
reduced in rank on
the ground of conduct which has
s
led to his conviction
on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the au
uthority empowered to dismiss or
r
remove a person or
to reduce him in rank is satisfied
d
that for some reason
n, to be recorded by that authority
y
in writing, it is no
t reasonably practicable to hold
d
such inquiry ; or
(c) where the Pr
resident or the Governor, as the
e
case may be, is sat
tisfied that in the interest of the
e
security of the State
e, it is not expedient to hold such
h
inquiry.”

A plain reading of aforesaid pro
34.
ovisions of Article 311(2) of the
e
Constitution
incorporates a valuable safegu
uard available to a civil servant
t
against dism
missal, removal or reduction in
rank. No such penalty can be
e
imposed ordi
inarily except after holding an e
enquiry in which the delinquent
t
employee is
informed of the charges against
t him and afforded a reasonable
e
opportunity o
of being heard. As per first prov
viso thereto, in case an inquiry is
s
conducted fo
or the purpose of imposing pena
alty, it is not necessary to afford
d
an opportuni
ity at the stage of penalty. Cl
ause (b) of the second proviso
o
to Article 31
11(2) of the Constitution restri
icts the applicability of Article
e
311(2) in a s
specific situation: (i) if the appo
ointing authority is satisfied that
t
there should
be deviation from mandate of A
Article 311(2) because adherence
e
to the same
is not ‘reasonably practicable’;
and (ii) such reasons are to be
e
recorded in
writing. Similarly, when suc
ch power to deviate from the
e
applicable p
rocedure is to be exercised u
under clause (c) of the second
d
proviso, it m
ay be done so, only in the intere
st of ‘security of the State’ or ‘if
f
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(24)

edient to hold such inquiry’. Be
it is not expe
e that as it may, the present case
e
relates to c
clause (b) of the second pro
oviso to Article 311(2) of the
e
Constitution,
, therefore, the applicability of
the said provision needs to be
e
discussed in
the facts of this case.
35.
It is trite law that the decision of
f the appointing authority on the
e
issue of ‘reco
ording reasons in writing on its s
satisfaction as to why holding an
n
inquiry is no
ot reasonably practicable’ may
y be subject to judicial review
w
under Article
e 226 by the High Court. The Co
onstitution Bench of the Hon'ble
e
Supreme Co
urt in Tulsiram Patel’s case (s
(supra) , has reiterated the legal
l
position and
authoritatively explained the sc
ope and ambit of Article 311(2)
)
and the seco
nd proviso thereto. The Court h
has made it clear that the power
r
under Article
e 311(2)(b) is an exceptional p
power and cannot be exercised
d
arbitrarily or
merely for the purpose of avoid
ding a departmental enquiry. The
e
condition p
precedent for invoking Clau
se (b) is the existence of
f
circumstance
es which render the holding
of an enquiry not reasonably
y
practicable a
and the recording, in writing, of
f reasons for the satisfaction of
f
the disciplina
ary authority. It has been held a
as under:
“32. The arguments advanced
d on behalf of the government
t
servants on the pleasure doctrine
and the second proviso to Article
e
311 (2) may be sketched in broad o
outlined as under :
(1) The pleasure doctri
ine in England is a part of the
e
special prerogative of the
Crown and has been inherited by
y
India from England and
should, therefore, be construed
d
strictly, that is, strictly aga
ainst the Government and liberally
y
in favour of government ser
rvants.
(2) The second proviso w
which withdraws from government
t
servants the safeguards p
provided by clause (2) of Article
e
311 must be also similarly
y construed for, unless a liberal
l
construction were placed up
pon it, great hardship would result
t
to government servants as
they could be arbitrarily thrown
VIMAL KUMAR n
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&M)
(25)

out of employment and the
ey and their dependents would be
e
left without any means of su
ubsistence.
(3) There are several sta
ages before a government servant
t
can be dismissed or remo
oved or reduced in rank, namely,

serving upon him of a show
w cause notice or a charge-sheet,

giving him inspection of doc
cuments, examination of witnesses,

arguments and imposition
of penalty. An inquiry starts only
y
after a show cause notic
ce is issued and served upon a
a
government servant. A show
w cause notice is thus preparatory
y
to the holding of an inquiry
ry and even if the entire inquiry is
s
dispensed with, the giving o
of a show cause notice and asking
g
for the explanation of the
government servant with respect
t
there to are not excluded.
(4) It is not obligatory u
upon the disciplinary authority to
o
dispense with the whole of
f the inquiry. Depending upon the
e
circumstances of the case
e, the disciplinary authority can
n
dispense with only a part of
f the inquiry.
(5) Imposition of penalty
ty is not a part of the inquiry and
d
once an inquiry is dispens
sed with, whether in whole or in
n
part, it is obligatory upon th
he disciplinary authority to give an
n
opportunity to the gov
vernment servant to make a
a
representation with respec
ct to the penalty proposed to be
e
imposed upon him.
(6) Article 311 is subje
ect to Article 14. Principles of
f
natural justice and the au
udi alteram partem rule are part
t
of Article 14 and, therefore
e, a show cause notice asking for
r
the explanation of the gove
ernment servant with respect to the
e
charges against him as al
lso a notice to show cause with
h
respect to the proposed p
penalty are required to be given
n
by Article 14 and the not g
giving of such notices or either of
f
them renders the order of d
dismissal, removal or reduction in
n
rank invalid.
33. The submissions on behalf
f of the Union of India can be thus
s
summarized :
(1) The second proviso m
must be construed according to its
s
terms. It is unambiguous
and does not admit of any such
h
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(26)

interpretation as canvassed
d for on behalf of the government
t
servants.
(2) Where under the sec
cond proviso, clause (2) of Article
e
311 is made inapplicable, t
there is no scope for holding any
y
partial inquiry.
(3) In any event, the ver
ry contents of the three clauses of
f
the second proviso show
that it is not necessary or not
t
practicable or not expedien
nt that any partial inquiry could be
e
or should be held, dependin
ng upon which clause applies.
(4) Article 14 does not gov
vern or control Article 311. The
e
Constitution must be
read as a whole. Article
e
311(2) embodies the princip
ples of natural justice including the
e
audi alteram partem rule.
It thus expressly states what is
s
required under Article 14
as a result of the interpretation
n
placed upon it by recent d
decisions of this Court. Once the
e
application of clause(2)
is expressly excluded by the
e
Constitution itself, there c
can be no question of making
g
applicable what has been
so excluded by seeking recourse
e
to Article 14.
(5) Consideration of
sympathy for the government
t
servants who may be dism
missed or removed or reduced in
n
rank are irrelevant to the c
construction of the second proviso.

The doctrine of tenure at
t pleasure in Article 310 and the
e
safeguards given to a gove
ernment servant under clauses (1)
)
and (2) of Article 311 as als
so the withdrawal of the safeguard
d
under clause (2) by the se
econd proviso are all enacted in
n
public interest and where pu
ublic interest conflicts with private
e
interest, the latter must yield
d to the former.
The Ple
easure Doctrine:
34. The concept of civil servic
ce is not now or of recent origin.

Governments - whether monarchia
al, dictatorial or republican - have
e
to function; and for carrying on
the administration and the varied
d
f
functions of the government a larg
ge number of persons are required
d
and have always been required, w
whether they are constituted in the
e
f
form of a civil service or not. E
Every kingdom and country of the
e
world throughout history had a g
group of persons who helped the
e
ruler to administer the land, whe
ther according to modern notions
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(27)

we may call that group a civil
service or not, because it is not
t
p
possible for one man by himself to
rule and govern the land and look
k
after and supervise all the deta
ails of administration. As it was
s
throughout history, so it has been i
in England and in India.
xx
xx xx
The Second P
Proviso to Article 311(2):
60. Clause (2) of Article 311 giv
ves a constitutional mandate to the
e
p
principles of natural justice an
d audi alteram partem rule by
y
p
providing that a person employed i
in a civil capacity under the Union
n
or a State shall not be dismissed o
r removed from service or reduced
d
in rank until after an inquiry in w
which he has been informed of the
e
charges against him and has been
given a reasonable opportunity of
f
being heard in respect of those ch
harges. To this extent, the pleasure
e
doctrine enacted in Article 310
0(1) is abridged because Article
e
311(2) is a express provision of
the Constitution. This safeguard
d
p
provided for a government serva
nt by clause (2) of Article 311 is,

however, taken away when the
second proviso to that clause
e
becomes applicable. The safeguar
rd provided by clause(1) of Article
e
311, however, remains intact and
d continues to be available to the
e
government servant. The second p
proviso to Article 311(2) becomes
s
applicable in the three cases ment
tioned in clauses (a) to (c) of that
t
p
proviso. These cases are:-
(a) where a person is di
ismissed or removed or reduced in
n
rank on the ground of condu
duct which has led to his conviction
n
on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority e
empowered to dismiss or remove a
a
person or to reduce him i
in rank is satisfied that for some
e
reason, to be recorded by
that authority in writing, it is not
t
reasonably practicable to ho
old such inquiry; and
(c) where the President
or the Governor, as the case may
y
be, is satisfied that in the in
nterest of the security of the State it
t
is not expedient to hold such
h inquiry.
The Construction to be placed u
upon the second proviso and the
e
scope and effect of that proviso w
were much debated at the Bar. In
n
H
Hira Lal Rattan Lal etc. v. State
e of U.P. & Anr., [1973] 2 S.C.R.

502 this Court observed (at page 5
512) ;
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(28)

"In construing a statutory p
provision, the first and the foremost
t
rule of construction is the
literary construction. All that we
e
have to see at the very outse
et is what does that provision say?
?
If the provision is unambigu
uous and if from that provision, the
e
legislative intent is clear, w
we need not call into aid the other
r
rules of construction of
f statutes. The other rules of
f
construction of statutes ar
re called into aid only when the
e
legislature intention is not
t clear. Ordinarily a proviso to a
a
section is intended to take
out a part of the main section for
r
special treatment. It is not
t expected to enlarge the scope of
f
the main section. But cases
s have arisen in which this Court
t
has held that despite the
e fact that a provision is called
d
proviso, it is really a sepa
arate provision and the so called
d
proviso has substantially al
tered the main section."
In Commissioner of Income Tax
x, Madras v. Madurai Mills Co.

Ltd., [1973] 3 S.C.R. 662 , this Cou
urt said (at page 669):
L
"A proviso cannot be const
trued as enlarging the scope of an
n
enactment when it can b
be fairly and properly construed
d
without attributing to it tha
t effect. Further, if the language of
f
the enacting part of the stat
tute is plain and unambiguous and
d
does not contain the provis
sions which are said to occur in it,

one cannot derive those p
provisions by implication from a
a
proviso."
61. The language of the second
d proviso is plan and unambiguous.

The key-words in the second pr
roviso are "this clause shall not
t
apply". By "this clause" is meant c
clause(2). As clause(2) requires an
n
inquiry to be held against a gove
ernment servant, the only meaning
g
attributable to these words is tha
at this inquiry shall not be held.

There is no scope for any ambigu
uity in these words and there is no
o
reason to given them any mean
ing different from the plain and
d
ordinary meaning which they be
ear. The resultant effect of these
e
words is that when a situation env
visaged in any of the three clauses
s
of the proviso arises and that
clause becomes applicable, the
e
safeguard provided to a governme
ent servant by clause (2) is taken
n
away. As pointed out earlier, this
s provision is as much in public
c
interest and for public good and
d a matter of public policy as the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(29)

pleasure doctrine and the safegu
p
uards with respect to security of
f
tenure contained in clauses (1) and
d (2) of Article 311.
xx
xx xx
129. The next contention was
that even if it is not reasonably
y
p
practicable to hold an inquiry, a g
government servant can be placed
d
under suspension until the situ
uation improves and it becomes
s
p
possible to hold the inquiry. T
This contention also cannot be
e
accepted. Very often a situation
which makes it not reasonably
y
p
practicable to hold an inquiry is
of the creation of the concerned
d
government servant himself or o
of himself acting in concert with
h
others or of his associates. It can
n even be that he himself is not a
a
p
party to bringing about that situ
uation. In all such cases neither
r
p
public interest nor public good re
equires that salary or subsistence
e
allowance should be continued
to be paid out of the public
c
exchequer to the concerned gover
rnment servant. It should also be
e
borne in mind that in the case of
f a serious situation which renders
s
the holding of an inquiry not rea
asonably practicable, it would be
e
difficult to foresee how long th
he situation will last and when
n
normalcy would return or be rest
tored. It is impossible to draw the
e
line as to the period of time f
for which the suspension should
d
continue and on the expiry of th
hat period action should be taken
n
under clause (b) of the second pro
oviso. Further, the exigencies of a
a
situation may require that prom
mpt action should be taken and
d
suspending the government serv
vant cannot serve the purpose.

Sometimes not taking prompt a
action may result in the trouble
e
spreading and the situation wo
orsening and at times becoming
g
uncontrolable. Not taking prompt
action may also be construed by
y
the trouble- makers and agitators
as sign of weakness on the part of
f
the authorities and thus encourage
e them to step up the tempo of their
r
activities or agitation. It is true th
hat when prompt action is taken in
n
order to prevent this happening, th
here is an element of deterrence in
n
it but that is an unavoidable and n
necessary concomitance of such an
n
action resulting from a situation w
which is not of the creation of the
e
authorities. After all, clause (b)
is not meant to be applied in
n
ordinary, normal situations but
in such situations where is not
t
reasonably practicable to hold an
inquiry.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(30)

130 The condition precedent fo
or the application of clause (b) is
s
the satisfaction of the disciplinary
authority that "it is not reasonably
y
p
practicable to hold" the inquiry co
ontemplated by clause (2) of Article
e
311. What is pertinent to note i
is that the words used are "not
t
reasonably practicable" and not
"impracticable". According to the
e
Oxford English Dictionary "pract
ticable" means "Capable of being
g
p
put into practice, carried out in a
action, effected, accomplished, or
r
done; feasible". Webster's Third
d New International Dictionary
y
defines the word "practicable" in
nter alia as meaning "possible to
o
p
practice or perform: capable of
being put into practice, done or
r
accomplished : feasible". Furthe
er, the words used are not "not
t
p
practicable" but "not reasonably p
practicable". Webster's Third New
w
International Dictionary defines
the word "reasonably" as "in a
a
reasonable manner : to a fairly s
sufficient extent". Thus, whether it
t
was practicable to hold the inqu
uiry or not must be judged in the
e
context of whether it was reasonab
bly practicable to do so. It is not a
a
total or absolute impracticability
which is required by clause (b).

What is requisite is that the holdin
ng of the inquiry is not practicable
e
in the opinion of a reasonable ma
an taking a reasonable view of the
e
p
prevailing situation. It is not po
ssible to enumerate the cases in
n
which it would not be reasonably p
practicable to hold the inquiry, but
t
some instances by way of illustr
ration may, however, be given. It
t
would not be reasonably practica
able to hold an inquiry where the
e
government servant, particularly
y through or together with his
s
associates, so terrorizes, threatens
s or intimidate witnesses who are
e
going to given evidence against
him with fear of reprisal as to
o
p
prevent them from doing so or w
where the government servant by
y
himself or together with or throug
gh other threatens, intimidates and
d
terrorizes the officer who is the di
isciplinary authority or member of
f
his family so that he is afraid to
hold the inquiry or direct it to be
e
held. It would also not be reasona
bly practicable to hold the inquiry
y
where an atmosphere of violenc
e or of general indiscipline and
d
insubordination prevails, and it is
immaterial whether the concerned
d
government servant is or is not a
a party to bringing about such an
n
atmosphere. In this connection, w
e must bear in mind that numbers
s
coerce and terrify while an indi
ividual may not. The reasonable
e
p
practicability of holding an inquir
ry is a matter of assessment to be
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(31)

made by the disciplinary authorit
ty. Such authority is generally on
n
the spot and knows what is happen
ning. It is because the disciplinary
y
authority is the best judge of this th
hat clause (3) of Article 311 makes
s
the decision of the disciplinary a
authority on this question final. A
A
disciplinary authority is not expec
cted to dispense with a disciplinary
y
inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or ou
ut of ulterior motives or merely in
n
order to avoid the holding of an in
nquiry or because the Department's
s
case against the government ser
rvant is weak and must fail. The
e
f
finality given to the decision of th
he disciplinary authority by Article
e
311(3) is not binding upon the co
urt so far as its power of judicial
l
review is concerned and in such a
case the court will strike down the
e
order dispensing with the inqui
iry as also the order imposing
g
p
penalty. The case of Arjun Chaub
bey v. Union of India and others,

[1984] 3 S.C.R. 302, is an inst
tance in point. In that case, the
e
appellant was working as a senio
or clerk in the office of the Chief
f
Commercial Superintendent, No
orthern Railway, Varanasi. The
e
Senior Commercial Officer wrote
e a letter to the appellant calling
g
upon him to submit his explanatio
n with regard to twelve charges of
f
gross indiscipline mostly relating
to the Deputy Chief Commercial
l
Superintendent. The appellant sub
bmitted his explanation and on the
e
very next day the Deputy Chief Co
ommercial Superintendent served a
a
second notice on the appellant sa
aying that his explanation was not
t
convincing and that another chanc
ce was being given to him to offer
r
his explanation with respect to
o those charges. The appellant
t
submitted his further explanation
n but on the very next day the
e
D
Deputy Chief Commercial Sup
uperintendent passed an order
r
dismissing him on the ground tha
at he was not fit to be retained in
n
service. This Court struck down th
he order holding that seven out of
f
twelve charges related to the co
onduct of the appellant with the
e
D
Deputy Chief Commercial Superin
ntendent who was the disciplinary
y
authority and that if an inquiry we
ere to be held, the principal witness
s
f
for the Department would have be
een the Deputy Chief Commercial
l
Superintendent himself, resulting i
in the same person being the main
n
accuser, the chief witness and also
the judge of the matter.
xx
xx xx
133. The second condition nece
essary for the valid application of
f
clause (b) of the second proviso
is that the disciplinary authority
y
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(32)

should record in writing its reason
n for its satisfaction that it was not
t
reasonably practicable to hold th
he inquiry contemplated by Article
e
311(2). This is a Constitutional ob
bligation and if such reason is not
t
recorded in writing, the order dis
spensing with the inquiry and the
e
order of penalty following there
reupon would both be void and
d
unconstitutional.”

In Jaswant Singh’s case (supr
36.
ra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t
has held tha
at two conditions must necessa
arily be satisfied before action
n
under Article
e 311(2) (b) can be sustained: fi
first, there must exist a situation
n
which render
rs the holding of an enquiry “n
not reasonably practicable”; and
d
secondly, th
he disciplinary authority must
record in writing the reasons
s
supporting it
s satisfaction. It has been held as
s under:
“2. The appellant was placed u
under suspension on April 19, 1978
8
on the ground that he had absente
ed himself from duty to attend the
e
A
Annual Nirankari Samagam held
on April 13,1978. The allegation
n
was enquired into through the conc
cerned Assistant Superintendent of
f
Police. As nothing objectionable w
was found he was exonerated and
d
was ordered to be taken back in s
service with effect from the date of
f
his suspension. Thereafter, two
o departmental enquiries were
e
initiated. against him. The outco
ome of the first inquiry was his
s
reversion to the lower post of Cons
stable: the second inquiry resulted
d
in his dismissal from service. Both
these orders of April 27, 1979 and
d
October 12, 1979 respectively, p
assed by ASP/GRP, Patiala were
e
challenged by two separate app
peals. Both these appeals were
e
dismissed by the third respondent
by his orders dated March 18 and
d
19, 1980. The appellant pre
eferred two separate Revision
n
A
Applications to the Inspector Gene
eral of Police. Punjab which were
e
allowed on October 13, 1980 an
nd both the cases were remanded
d
with a direction to re-consider t
the inquiry report and pass fresh
h
orders. The ASP/GRP was direct
ted to reinstate the appellant and
d
then issue fresh show cause noti
ices. After the above orders were
e
p
passed the appellant rejoined dutie
es as Head Constable on March 5,

1981. The third respondent howe
ver, placed him under suspension
n
f
forthwith. Thereafter, the appella
ant sought an interview with the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(33)

Director General/Inspector Gener
D
ral of Police, Punjab by his two
o
letters dated March 23 and 27, 19
981 addressed to respondent No. 3.

Since respondent No. 3 refused p
permission the appellant claims to
o
have written a letter dated March
24, 1981 to the DG/IGP informing
g
him about the objectionable act
tivities of respondent No. 3. the
e
receipt of this letter by the office
of DG/IGP is, however, disputed
d
although the appellant has prod
duced an acknowledgement dated
d
March 27, 1981 evidencing the rec
ceipt thereof. Be that as it may, the
e
f
fact remains that after the rem
mand orders were passed in the
e
appellant's two Revision Applicat
tions, the third respondent issued
d
two separate notice, both dated
April 4, 1981, calling upon the
e
appellant to show cause within 10
0 days from receipt thereof why he
e
should not be dismissed from ser
rvice. Before the service of these
e
show cause notices an incident
occurred at about 11.00 a.m. on
n
A
April 6, 1981 in GRP Lines, Pati
iala, where the appellant resided.

The allegation is that on that dat
te at the said time and place S.I.,

N
Niranjan Singh, A.S.I., Harmel Sin
ngh and A.S.I., Ram Prakash were
e
in the verandah of barrack No. 8
8. In their full view the appellant
t
appeared in the verandah with a
knife in his left hand and tried to
o
p
plunge the same into his chest w
with a view to committing suicide.

S.I., Niranjan Singh, acting on
n impulse, gave a push to the
e
appellant's left but in the process
s the blade of the knife caused an
n
injury to the appellant on his rig
ght arm and his shirt was blood
d
stained. The appellant was charg
ge-sheeted u/s 309 I.P.C. and was
s
sent to the hospital for treatment.
It is alleged that while he was in
n
hospital the two show cause notic
ces were served on him on April 6,

1981 at about 10.00 p.m. Even tho
ough 10 days time was allowed to
o
him to show cause, the third respo
ondent who was biased against him
m
p
passed the impugned order of d
dismissal on April 7, 1981. The
e
appellant contends that the third
d respondent's action was clearly
y
mala fide and actuated by ulterio
or motives. The appellant further
r
contends that there was no just
tification for dispensing with the
e
enquiry contemplated by Article
311(2) and the ground given in
n
p
paragraph 3 of the impugned orde
er is wholly imaginary. He further
r
contends that the impugned order
of April 7, 1981 was not actually
y
served on him but his signature wa
as obtained on some piece of paper
r
while he was in hospital. Accordin
ng to him, after he was discharged
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(34)

from the hospital he applied for a c
f
copy of the impugned order but the
e
third respondent failed to furn
nish the same to him. Similar
r
applications were also addressed
to the DG/ IGP from time to time
e
but he did not receive any reply t
to his letters and reminders. Since
e
the period of limitation for filing
an appeal was likely to expire he
e
p
preferred his appeal without bei
ing aware of the contents of the
e
impugned order. This appeal was
s dismissed by the DG/IGP by his
s
order dated January 29, 1982. He
then filed a Civil Suit in the Court
t
of the learned Senior Sub-Judge,
, Patiala, wherein he applied for
r
p
production of documents and secu
ured an order for the production of
f
a copy of the impugned dismissal
order dated April 7, 1981. After a
a
copy of the impugned order was
s produced he preferred another
r
departmental appeal but that too
o was dismissed on February 5,

1982. After he failed to pursuade t
the Appellate Authority to look into
o
his grievances he filed the Writ Pe
etition which has given rise to this
s
appeal. The department's case fo
und in the counter is that on the
e
night of April 5/6, 1981. The Lin
nes Officer had gone to check the
e
p
presence of the appellant in his q
quarter when the latter bolted the
e
door from inside and threatened t
the Lines Officer and then filed a
a
f
false case that the Lines Officer h
had broken his window panes and
d
had thrown stones in his room. On
n inquiry the complaint was found
d
to be baseless. Thereafter, on Apri
il 6, 1981, at about 11.00 a.m. the
e
appellant attempted to commit suic
cide.
xx xx
xx
4. Article 310 of our Constitu
ution which engrafts the pleasure
e
doctrine of the English common
law is, however, qualified by the
e
opening words 'except as express
sly provided by this Constitution'.

A
Article 311 is one such express p
provision. According to Clause (1)
)
thereof, a person who is a mem
mber of a civil service cannot be
e
dismissed or removed from servic
ce by an authority subordinate to
o
that by which he was appointed.
Clause (2) next provides that no
o
such person shall be dismissed or r
removed or reduced in rank except
t
after an inquiry in which he ha
as been informed of the charges
s
against him and given a reasonab
ble opportunity of being heard in
n
respect of those charges. Then com
mes the first proviso with which we
e
are not concerned. The second pro
oviso has three clauses but we are
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(35)

concerned with Clause (b) only. C
Clause (b) of that second proviso
o
reads as under:
“Provided further that this
clause shall not apply-
x x
x
(b) where the authority e
empowered to dismiss or remove a
a
person or to reduce him i
in rank is satisfied that for some
e
reason, to be recorded by
that authority in writing, it is not
t
reasonably practicable to h
old such inquiry.”
Thus the English doctrine incorp
rporated in Article 310 which is
s
qualified by the opening words "ex
xcept as expressly provided by this
s
Constitution" is subject to Articl
le 311(1) and (2) which contains
s
safeguards against termination fr
rom service. However, the second
d
p
proviso to Article 311(2) is again
in the nature of an exception and
d
lays down that in cases catalogued
d in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof
f
the requirement of an inquiry can
n be dispensed with. The scope of
f
A
Articles 310 and 311 of the Consti
itution was examined by this Court
t
in Union of India and Anr. v. Tul
lsi Ram Patel and Ors. [1985] Su.

2 SCR 131 wherein by majority
y this Court held that once the
e
requirements of the relevant cla
ause of the second proviso are
e
satisfied, the services of a civil s
servant can be terminated without
t
f
following the audi alteram partem
m rule. It was held that since the
e
requirement of Article 311(2) was
s expressly excluded by the second
d
p
proviso, there was no question of
f introducing the same by the back
k
door. On this line of reasoning,
the majority held that Divisonal
l
Personnel Officer, Southern
Railway & another Vs.

6) 1 SCR 783 , was not correctly
y
T.R.Chellappan & others, (1976)
decided. It, therefore, took the view
w that it is not necessary to offer a
a
hearing to the civil servant ev
ven on the limited question of
f
p
punishment. Insofar as Clause (b)
) is concerned this Court pointed
d
out that two conditions must be sa
atisfied to sustain any action taken
n
thereunder. These are (i) there mu
ust exist a situation which renders
s
holding of any inquiry "not reas
sonably practicable" and (ii) the
e
disciplinary authority must record
d in writing its reasons in support
t
of its satisfaction. Of course the
e question of practicability would
d
depend on the existing fact-si
ituation and other surrounding
g
circumstances, that is to say, t
that the question of reasonable
e
p
practicability must be judged in
n the light of the circumstances
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(36)

prevailing at the date of the passi
p
ing of the order. Although Clause
e
(3) of that Article makes the decisi
ion of the disciplinary authority in
n
this behalf final such finality can c
certainly be tested in a court of law
w
and interfered with if the action is
found to be arbitrary or mala fide
e
or motivated by extraneous con
nsiderations or merely a ruse to
o
dispense with the inquity. Also s
see: Satyavir Singh Vs. Union of
f
SCC 252 ; Shivaji Atmaji Sawant
I
India (UOI) & others, (1985) 4 S
t
Others, (1986) 2 SCC 112 , and
d
Vs. State of Maharashtra and
lkramuddin Ahmed Borah v. Su
uperintendent of Police, Darrang
g
and Ors. [1988] Su. SCC 663 .
5. The impugned order of A
April 7, 1981 itself contains the
e
reasons for dispensing with the
inquiry contemplated by Article
e
311(2) of the Constitution. Paragr
raph 3 of the said order, which we
e
have extracted earlier, gives t
two reasons in support of the
e
satisfaction that it was not rea
asonably practicable to hold a
a
departmental enquiry against th
he appellant. These are (i) the
e
appellant has thrown threats that
t he with the help of other police
e
employees will not allow holdin
ng of any departmental enquiry
y
against him and (ii) he and his as
ssociates will not hesitate to cause
e
p
physical injury to the witnesses as
s well as the enquiry officer. Now
w
as stated earlier after the two Revi
ision Applications were allowed on
n
October 13, 1980. the appellant
t had re-joined service as Head
d
Constable on March 5, 1981 but
he was immediately placed under
r
suspension. Thereafter, two show
cause notices dated April 4, 1981

were issued against him calling up
pon him to reply thereto within 10
0
days after the receipt thereof. Befo
fore the service of these notices the
e
incident of alleged attempt to co
ommit suicide took place on the
e
morning of April 6, 1981 at abou
ut 11.00 a.m. In that incident the
e
appellant sustained an injury on h
his right arm with a knife. He was,

therefore, hospitalised and while
he was in hospital the two show
w
cause notices were served on him
m at about 10.00 p.m. on April 6,

1981. Before the appellant coul
ld reply to the said show cause
e
notices the third respondent passe
ed the impugned order on the very
y
next day i.e. April 7, 1981. Now t
the earlier departmental enquiries
s
were duly conducted against the ap
ppellant and there is no allegation
n
that the department had found any
y difficulty in examining witnesses
s
in the said inquiries. After the Re
evision Applications were allowed
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(37)

the show cause notices were issue
ed and 10 days time was given to
o
the appellant to put in his replies
s thereto. We, therefore, enquired
d
f
from the learned Counsel for th
he respondents to point out what
t
impelled respondent No. 3 to take
a decision that it was necessary to
o
f
forthwith terminate the services of
f the appellant without holding an
n
inquiry as required by Article 311
1(2). The learned Counsel for the
e
respondents could only point out C
Clause (iv)(a) of sub-para 29(A) of
f
the counter which reads as under:
“The order dated 7.4.81
was passed as the petitioner's
s
activities were objectionab
ble. He was instigating his fellow
w
police officials to cause in
ndiscipline, show insubordination
n
and exhibit disloyalty, spre
eading discontentment and hatred,

etc. and his retention in serv
vice was adjudged harmful.”
This is no more than a mere rep
production of paragraph 3 of the
e
impugned order. Our attention
was not drawn to any material
l
existing on the date of the imp
pugned order in support of the
e
allegation contained in paragraph
h 3 thereof that the appellant had
d
thrown threats that he and his com
mpanions will not allow holding of
f
any departmental enquiry agains
st him and that they would not
t
hesitate to cause physical injury
y to the witnesses as well as the
e
enquiry officer if any such attemp
pt was made. It was incumbent on
n
the respondents to disclose to the
Court the material in existence at
t
the date of the passing of the im
mpugned order in support of the
e
subjective satisfaction recorded
d by respondent No. 3 in the
e
impugned order. Clause (b) of the
e second proviso to Article 311(2)
)
can be invoked only when the auth
hority is satisfied from the material
l
p
placed before him that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold a
a
departmental enquiry. This is clea
ar from the following observation
n
at p. 270 of Tulsi Ram's case:
“A disciplinary authority is
is not expected to dispense with a
a
disciplinary authority lightl
ly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior
r
motives or merely in order
to avoid the holding of an inquiry
y
or because the Departmen
nt's case against the government
t
servant is weak and must fa
ail.”
The decision to dispense with th
the departmental enquiry cannot,

therefore, be rested solely on
the ipse dixit of the concerned
d
authority. When the satisfaction
n of the concerned authority is
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(38)

questioned in a court of law, it is
s incumbent on those who support
t
the order to show that the satisfac
ction is based on certain objective
e
f
facts and is not the outcome of the
e whim or caprice of the concerned
d
officer. In the counter filed by the
e third respondent it is contended
d
that the appellant, instead of rep
plying to the show cause notices,

instigated his fellow police officia
als to disobey the superiors. It is
s
also said that he threw threats t
to beat up the witnesses and the
e
Inquiry Officer if any departmenta
al inquiry was held against him. No
o
p
particulars are given. Besides it
is difficult to understand how he
e
could have given threats, etc., w
when he was in hospital. It is not
t
shown on what material the third r
respondent came to the conclusion
n
that the appellant had thrown thr
reats as alleged in paragraph 3 of
f
the impugned order. On a close s
scrutiny of the impugned order it
t
seems the satisfaction was base
ed on the ground that he was
s
instigating his colleagues and w
was holding meetings with other
r
p
police officials with a view to spr
reading hatred and dissatisfaction
n
towards his superiors. This alle
egation is based on his alleged
d
activities at Jullundur on April
3, 1981 reported by SHO/GRP,

Jullundur. That report is not forth
hcoming. It is no one's contention
n
that the said SHO was threatened
d. The third respondent's counter
r
also does not reveal if he had
d verified the correctness of the
e
information. To put it tersely the s
subjective satisfaction recorded in
n
p
paragraph 3 of the impugned
order is not fortified by any
y
independent material to justify th
he dispensing with of the inquiry
y
envisaged by Article 311(2) of the
e Constitution. We are, therefore,

of the opinion that on this short g
ground alone the impugned order
r
cannot be sustained.”
37.
It is relevant to note that appl
lying the judgment of Tulsiram
m
Patel ’s case
(supra), various cases have
been decided by the Hon’ble
e
Supreme Cou
urt indicating what may be a su
ufficient reason and how and in
n
what circum
mstances holding a department
tal enquiry is not reasonably
y
practicable, a
and the scope of judicial review
in such cases. In Ex. Constable
e
s case (supra) the Court held as th
hus:
Chhote Lal’s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(39)

“2. The appellant who was a C
Constable has been dismissed from
m
service by the departmental autho
ority without holding any inquiry
y
and exercising power under Artic
cle 311(2), second proviso, clause
e
(b) of the Constitution of India. H
Having failed in his attempt to get
t
the order of the departmental a
authority annulled in appeal, the
e
appellant approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short
t
"the Tribunal") mainly conten
nding that in the facts and
d
circumstances of the present case,
, dispensation of an inquiry is not
t
j
justified. The Tribunal having
dismissed his application, the
e
appellant approached the High Co
ourt by way of a writ petition and
d
the High Court having dismissed h
his writ petition, the appellant is in
n
appeal before this Court.
3. Mr Yadav, learned couns
sel appearing for the appellant
t
contends that though the employer
r has the power to dispense with an
n
inquiry under Article 311(2), se
econd proviso, clause (b) of the
e
Constitution but the conditions pr
recedent for exercising that power
r
have now been indicated in severa
al decisions of this Court and in the
e
p
present case, those conditions prec
cedent cannot be said to have been
n
satisfied. Mr. Choudhary, the lear
rned Senior Counsel appearing for
r
the respondents, on the other ha
and, contended that the appellant
t
himself being a Police Consta
able could have influenced the
e
witnesses who would have come i
in the departmental inquiry and if
f
on that ground the departmental
authorities apprehended that the
e
inquiry would not be reasonable a
and fair, the conclusion cannot be
e
interfered with.
4. Having examined the riva
al contentions of the parties and
d
bearing in mind the law laid do
own by this Court indicating the
e
circumstances under which the inq
quiry under Article 311(2), second
d
p
proviso, clause (b) of the Constit
tution can be dispensed with and
d
applying the same to the facts an
nd circumstances and the reasons
s
advanced by the authorities in arr
riving at the decision, we have no
o
hesitation to come to the conclusi
ion that the order dispensing with
h
the departmental inquiry is no
ot in accordance with law and
d
necessarily the order of dism
issal cannot be sustained. We
e
accordingly set aside the order
of dismissal passed against the
e
appellant and permit the departme
ental authority to hold an inquiry if
f
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(40)

so desired, in accordance with law
w and come to the conclusion in the
e
said proceeding.
5. Normally, an order of di
ismissal on being set aside, the
e
employee can claim back wages, b
but in this case we are not inclined
d
to grant back wages to the employ
yee concerned, more so, in view of
f
”
the nature of charges against him.
38.
In the case of Tarsem Singh
h’s case (supra), the Hon’ble
e
Supreme Co
ourt has observed that the p
power of dispensing with the
e
constitutiona
al remedy of a delinquent, shou
uld not be exercised lightly or
r
arbitrarily, o
or out of ulterior motive with
the intent to avoid holding an
n
enquiry. In th
he said case, it has been observed
d as thus:
“10. It is now a well-settled prin
nciple of law that a constitutional
l
right conferred upon a delinquent
t cannot be dispensed with lightly
y
or arbitrarily or out of ulterior m
motive or merely in order to avoid
d
the holding of an enquiry. The lea
arned counsel appearing on behalf
f
of the appellant has taken us th
hrough certain documents for the
e
p
purpose of showing that ultimate
ely the police on investigation did
d
not find any case against the app
pellant in respect of the purported
d
FIR lodged against him under Sec
ction 377 IPC. However, it may not
t
be necessary for us to go into the s
said question.
xx
xx xx
14. In view of the fact that no
material had been placed by the
e
respondents herein to satisfy the
e Court that it was necessary to
o
dispense with a formal enquiry in
n terms of proviso (b) appended to
o
Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Co
Constitution of India, we are of the
e
opinion that the impugned orders
cannot be sustained and they are
e
set aside accordingly. The appella
ant is directed to be reinstated in
n
service. However, in view of our
aforementioned findings, it would
d
be open to the respondents to initia
ate a departmental enquiry against
t
……..”
the appellant if they so desire………
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-878-2025 (O&
&M)
(41)

In Risal Singh’s case (supra)
39.
) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t
emphasised t
that, while assigning the reason
in writing, it is imperative that
t
such reason
must be plausible and based o
on definite material. In the said
d
case, the Cou
urt relied upon on the judgment
of Tulsiram Patel’s case (supra)
)
and conclude
ed as under:
“10. Tested on the touchstone
of the aforesaid authorities, the
e
irresistible conclusion is that the o
order passed by the Superintendent
t
of Police dispensing with the inqu
uiry is totally unsustainable and is
s
hereby annulled. As the foundatio
on founders, the order of the High
h
Court giving the stamp of appro
val to the ultimate order without
t
addressing the lis from a proper p
perspective is also indefensible and
d
resultantly, the order of dismis
ssal passed by the disciplinary
y
authority has to pave the path of ex
xtinction.
11. Consequently, we allow th
e appeal and set aside the order
r
p
passed by the High Court and tha
t of the disciplinary authority. The
e
appellant shall be deemed to
be in service till the date of
f
superannuation. As he has attained
d the age of superannuation in the
e
meantime, he shall be entitled to
o all consequential benefits. The
e
arrears shall be computed and pai
id to the appellant within a period
d
of three months hence. Needless
to say, the respondents are not
t
p
precluded from initiating any disc
iplinary proceedings, if advised in
n
law. As the lis has been pending be
efore the Court, the period that has
s
been spent in Court shall be exclu
uded for the purpose of limitation
n
f
for initiating the disciplinary proc
ceedings as per rules. However, we
e
may hasten to clarify that our o
observations herein should not be
e
construed as a mandate to the au
thorities to initiate the proceeding
g
against the appellant. We may fur
rther proceed to add that the State
e
Government shall conduct itself a
as a model employer and act with
h
the objectivity which is expected f
from it. There shall be no order as
s
to costs.”

In Hari Niwas Gupta v. State
40.
of Bihar & another, 2020 (3)
)
SCC 153 , it h
has been held as under:
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.02 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.