Kashmiri Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(1)
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
IN THE
B AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
H
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
l
Kashmiri Lal
...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 01.10.2026
unced 02.11.2026
ded on the 02.11.2026
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.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NA
AMIT KUMAR
Present:
Mr. R.K.Arora, Senior Advocate
Mr. Shivam Ahuja and Ms. Urva
for the petitioner.
e, with
ashi, Advocates,
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Pu
unjab.
NAMIT KU
UMAR, J.
1.
The present petition has been
n filed by the petitioner under
r
Articles 226/
/227 of the Constitution of Indi
a, seeking issuance of a writ of
f
certiorari for
r quashing the order dated 12.06.
.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by
y
respondent N
No.4-Commissioner of Police, Ja
alandhar, whereby the petitioner
r
was dismisse
ed from service by invoking the
powers conferred under Article
e
311(2)(b) of
f the Constitution of India read
d with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab
b
Police Rules
s, as well as the order date
d 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4)
)
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(2)
espondent No.3-Additional Dire
passed by re
ector General of Police, Law &
&
Order, Punja
ab, Chandigarh, vide which the ap
ppeal preferred by the petitioner
r
against the a
aforesaid order of dismissal w
was rejected. The petitioner has
s
further sough
ht issuance of a writ of mandam
mus directing the respondents to
o
reinstate him
m in service with all consequentia
al benefits along with interest.
2.
Briefly stated, the facts of the ca
ase are that the petitioner joined
d
the Punjab P
Police as a Constable on 25.04.1
994 and was promoted as Head
d
Constable on
n 15.10.2010 and thereafter as
Assistant Sub Inspector (Local
l
Rank) on 26
6.02.2020. In the year, 2021, th
he petitioner was implicated in
n
FIR No.81 d
dated 28.05.2021, registered at
Police Station Sadar Jalandhar,
,
under Section
ns 384, 506, 120-B IPC [Section
ns 7(a) & 13 of the Prevention of
f
Corruption A
Act, 1988 added later on] (Annex
xure P-1) on the allegations that
t
he (petitione
er), while posted at Police Post
t Jandiala, Police Station Sadar
r
Commissione
erate, Jalandhar, formed a gang
along with HC Paramjit Singh,
,
Ravi Nahar,
Gurwinder Kaur, Prabhjot K
Kaur and Simran Kaur and the
e
female mem
mbers of the alleged gang woul
d make telephone calls to lure
e
influential pe
ersons into their trap, thereafter
the petitioner and his associates
s
would misus
e their official positions and uni
iforms to threaten them with the
e
registration o
of false criminal cases and ext
tort money from them through
h
intimidation.
The petitioner was arrested o
on the same day i.e. 28.05.2021
and was sub
bsequently released on bail on
09.07.2021. While he was in
n
judicial custo
ody, respondent No.4, being the
competent authority, passed the
e
order dated
12.06.2021 (Annexure P-2), di
ismissing him from service by
y
invoking pow
wers conferred under Article 3
11(2)(b) of the Constitution of
f
India read w
with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab P
Police Rules, without holding a
a
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(3)
rtmental inquiry. The relevant e
regular depar
extract from the said order reads
s
as under:
“xx xx
xx
I am satisfied with the fa
acts of the aforesaid report that
t
A
ASI/LR Kashmiri Lal No.801/Jalan
ndhar while being posted at Police
e
Station Sadar formed a gang w
with his fellow employees Head
d
Constable (P.R.), Paramjit S
Singh No.80/654, Ravi Nahar,
Gurwinder Kaur, Simranjit Kau
ur and Prabhdeep Kaur and by
y
getting calls from the female mem
mbers of the group, they lured the
e
influential/capitalists in their trap
and misused their official uniform
m
f
for fear of filing a false case and u
used to extort money from them by
y
intimidation. I am also satisfied t
that regular departmental enquiry
y
under Rule No.16.24 of the Punja
ab Police Rules, is not practicably
y
p
possible against this employee for
r the reasons recorded separately.
A
ASI/LR Kashmiri Lal No.801/J
Jalandhar being a Government
t
Employee misusing his position/au
uthority formed a gang along with
h
his fellow employees and some pr
rivate persons and created fear of
f
f
filing a false case by implicating
g the influential/capitalist persons.
D
Due to extortion, the image of
the police department has been
n
damaged in the general public, w
which is a very serious crime and
d
this act falls under the decay of m
moral turpitude. This employee is
s
very shrewd and criminal minded,
d, who is incorrigible and unfit for
r
the Police Department, whose mis
behavior has a negative impact on
n
the other employees. Therefore, it
t will not be possible to keep such
h
an employee in the Police Departm
ment.
Therefore, keeping in view
w the aforesaid circumstances in
n
view, I, Gurpreet Singh Bhullar
r, IPS, Commissioner of Police,
Jalandhar being the competent a
authority to punish in exercise of
f
p
powers conferred under Article
311(2)(b) of the Constitution of
f
India and Rule No.16.1 of the Pun
njab Police Rules, hereby order to
o
dismiss ASI/LR Kashmiri Lal No
o.801/Jalandhar from Government
t
oday on 12.06.2021 afternoon.”
service of the Police Department to
Aggrieved by the order of dism
3.
missal, the petitioner preferred an
n
appeal dated
d 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-3). H
However, the same was rejected
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(4)
nt No.3, vide order dated 26.0
by responden
08.2022 (Annexure P-4). The
e
relevant extra
act from the order dated 26.08.20
022 reads as under:
“4. The appellant Ex ASI Kas
shmiri Lal No.801/Jalandhar had
d
f
filed appeal dated 27.07.2021 in
this office against the aforesaid
d
orders. The appeal of the appe
ellant, service record, para-wise
e
comments on the appeal were ob
btained from the Commissioner of
f
Police, Jalandhar and the same w
were considered and the appellant
t
was also heard personally by me o
on 08.07.2022.
5. The service record of the ap
ppellant, departmental enquiry and
d
legal opinion given by the Law
Officer, C.P.O., in this has been
n
considered. After considering th
he aforementioned facts and the
e
submissions made by the appellan
nt during personal hearing, having
g
al, I hereby dismiss his appeal.”
f
found no valid ground in the appea
4.
Reply by way of an affidavit
of Mr. Vatsala Gupta, (IPS),
,
Deputy Com
mmissioner of Police (Headquar
rters), Police Commissionerate,
,
Jalandhar, ha
as been filed on behalf of the
respondents, wherein the facts
s
stated herein
nabove have not been dispute
ed. However, with regard to
o
dispensing w
with the regular departmental enq
quiry, it has been stated that the
e
competent au
uthority, before passing the imp
pugned order of dismissal, had
d
recorded sep
arate reasons in writing, which a
are annexed as Annexure R-1/T,
,
expressing it
ts satisfaction that it is not pra
acticably possible to conduct a
a
regular depar
rtmental enquiry against the pe
titioner in the manner provided
d
under Rule 1
6.24 of the Punjab Police Rules.
.
5.
The petitioner has filed replicat
ion controverting the averments
s
made in the r
reply filed on behalf of the respo
ondents.
6.
Learned senior counsel appe
earing for the petitioner has
s
submitted tha
at the impugned order of dismis
ssal does not contain any cogent
t
or legally su
ustainable reason for dispensing
g with the regular departmental
l
enquiry. It h
has further been submitted that
t although the impugned order
r
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(5)
reasons for dispensing with t
records that
the enquiry had been recorded
d
separately, h
however, no such reasons we
ere ever communicated to the
e
petitioner eit
ther by the punishing authority
y or by the appellate authority.
.
Learned seni
ior counsel contends that dismis
ssal from service, being a major
r
penalty, ord
dinarily cannot be imposed w
without conducting a regular
r
departmental
l enquiry in accordance with the
e prescribed procedure and that
t
recourse to
Article 311(2)(b) of the Cons
stitution is permissible only in
n
exceptional
circumstances where the co
ompetent authority records a
a
constitutiona
ally sufficient satisfaction that it
is not reasonably practicable to
o
hold such enq
quiry.
7.
Learned senior counsel has
further submitted that the
e
punishment i
imposed upon the petitioner is a
also contrary to Rule 16.2 of the
e
Punjab Poli
ice Rules, particularly when
the petitioner had rendered
d
approximatel
ly 27 years of service and had a
clean service record, apart from
m
having earne
ed Commendation Certificates
for excellent performance of
f
duties. It ha
as further been submitted that me
ere registration of FIR against a
a
government
employee is not the conclusiv
ve proof unless & until he is
s
convicted by
y the criminal Court and in t
the present case, only FIR is
s
registered ag
gainst the petitioner and further
the matter was not enquired by
y
the departme
ent before passing the order of
dismissal against the petitioner.
.
Learned sen
nior counsel further contended
that the petitioner’s claim for
r
pension has a
also not been duly considered. I
It was lastly submitted that none
e
of the points
s raised by the petitioner in his
appeal were considered by the
e
appellate aut
thority while deciding the appea
al and has rejected the same by
y
passing a cry
yptic and non-speaking order.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(6)
Per contra, learned counsel app
8.
earing for the respondents-State
e
has submitte
d that the conduct attributed to
the petitioner demonstrated that
t
he was incor
rrigible and unfit to continue in
n the police department. It has
s
further been
n submitted that a separate de
etailed order dated 12.06.2021
(Annexure R
R-1/T) was passed by the co
ompetent authority, specifically
y
recording the
e reasons for dispensing with th
he regular departmental enquiry.
.
The relevant
extract thereof reads as under:
“xx xx
xx
I am also satisfied from th
his thing that it is not possible to
o
conduct a regular departmental e
enquiry against him in the manner
r
p
provided under Rule 16.24 of Punj
jab Police Rules. As this employee
e
by making a gang was committing
g incidents, who is a very cunning
g
and criminal mind of person, whos
se contacts with bad elements have
e
been established. From the enclose
ed documents/call details record it
t
is proved that this employee was in
n contact with other accused since
e
a long time prior from registratio
on of case. The associates of this
s
employee are threatening the com
mplainant on his phone that if the
e
complainant cooperates with the p
police then he would have to face
e
its dire consequences, regarding w
which, on telling by complainant to
o
investigating officer the report N
No.25 dated 03.06.2021 has been
n
registered in the Roznamcha (DDR
R) Police Station Sadar Jalandhar.
It is apprehension that if the dep
partmental enquiry regarding the
e
case under the charge of taking br
ribe and serious crimes is initiated
d
against the employee then he by b
bringing the complainant/witnesses
s
under his influence can take un
ndue benefit in this departmental
l
enquiry and in that eventuality n
no witness would be able to give
e
evidence freely in the departmenta
al enquiry.
Keeping in view the above
e position, I have reached at this
s
conclusion that ASI/LR Kashmir
ri Lal No.801/Jalandhar who is
s
p
posted at Police Post Jandiala Po
olice Station Sadar, Jalandhar and
d
being posted on a responsible pos
st and due to his act of making a
a
gang in connivance with fellow pe
ersonnel and some private persons
s
by misusing his post/powers a
and further by implicating the
e
capitalists/influential persons and
d by scaring and threatening them
m
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(7)
and creating a fear of registration
n a false case against them and by
y
charging of money from them for
rcibly has spoiled image of police
e
department in general public. The
e act of above said employee is a
a
grave misconduct which falls withi
in a purview of (Moral Turpitude).
From which it is proved that he is
a person of criminal nature, which
h
is incorrigible and unfit for police
department, due to his misconduct
t
bad effect is being made on other e
employees. Due to which it is unfit
t
to keep him in the police departme
ent and services of this employee in
n
the police department are also not
in public interest.
Therefore, I, being a com
mpetent punishing authority, have
e
reached this conclusion that in th
e exercising the powers conferred
d
upon me under Article 311 (2)(b)
) of constitution of India and rule
e
16.1 of Punjab Police Rules do he
ereby dismiss ASI/LR Kashmiri Lal
l
N
No. 801/Jalandhar from police de
epartment on this day today dated
d
12.06.2021.”
It is, thus, submitted that th
he petitioner has rightly been
n
dismissed fr
rom service by invoking the e
exceptional power contained in
n
Article 311 (
2)(b) of the Constitution of India
a.
9.
I have heard learned counsel fo
or the parties and have perused
d
the record wi
ith their able assistance.
10.
Admittedly, the petitioner was
dismissed from service on the
e
basis of the
registration of the aforesaid FIR
R by invoking clause (b) of the
e
second provi
iso to Article 311(2) of the Con
nstitution of India. The relevant
t
constitutiona
al provision reads 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
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(8)
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
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 the aforesaid
11.
d Article makes it clear that the
e
authority wh
ho is empowered to dismiss or re
emove a person or to reduce his
s
rank without
holding a regular departmental
inquiry, has to record reasons in
n
writing as t
to why it is not reasonably p
practical to hold such inquiry.
.
However, a p
perusal of the impugned order da
ated 12.06.2021 (Annexure P-2)
)
reveals that
the punishing authority, after
noticing the facts, has merely
y
observed tha
at he is satisfied that regular de
epartmental inquiry under Rule
e
16.24 of the
PPR, is not practicably possibl
e against the petitioner and that
t
reasons have
e been recorded separately an
nd accordingly, dismissed the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(9)
om service. The impugned ord
employee fro
der itself does not disclose the
e
circumstance
es, which rendered the holding of
f an enquiry impracticable.
12.
It is true that the respondents h
have placed on record a separate
e
order dated 1
12.06.2021 (Annexure R-1/T), s
stated to contain the reasons for
r
dispensing w
with the departmental enquiry. H
However, even a perusal of the
e
said order r
reveals that no plausible or
cogent reason, satisfying the
e
constitutiona
al mandate, has been recorded th
erein. The main reason assigned
d
is that the pe
etitioner was allegedly in contact
t with the other accused persons
s
and that the
re was an apprehension that, i
in the event of a departmental
l
enquiry, he
might influence the complain
nant or other witnesses. Mere
e
apprehension
n that a delinquent employee ma
ay influence the complainant or
r
witnesses can
nnot constitute sufficient compl
liance with the requirements of
f
Article 311(2
2)(b) of the Constitution of Ind
dia or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab
b
Police Rules
. The disciplinary authority was
required to disclose the specific
c
factual circum
mstances which rendered it reaso
onably impracticable to hold the
e
departmental
l enquiry. It was necessary for t
the authority to demonstrate, on
n
the basis of
the material available on record
d, as to why the complainant or
r
witnesses cou
uld not be adequately protected
or examined in accordance with
h
the prescribe
ed procedure so as to ensure
e a fair departmental enquiry.
.
Similarly, th
he nature and gravity of the all
legations against the petitioner,
,
including the
e alleged formation of a gang,
his alleged association with
h
criminal elem
ments, or the alleged adverse
impact of his conduct on the
e
image of th
he police department, may fur
rnish justification for initiating
g
disciplinary p
proceedings and may also b
be relevant while determining
g
the appropri
iate punishment, if the charg
ges are ultimately established.
.
Mere regist
tration of an FIR cannot c
onstitute a sufficient ground
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(10)
Article 311(2)(b) of the Consti
for invoking
tution of India. The exceptional
l
power under
r the said provision cannot be
exercised merely because the
e
allegations a
against the delinquent employ
yee are grave or because the
e
disciplinary
authority considers him unfit to
o continue in service. More so,
,
the reasons
purportedly recorded for disp
pensing with the departmental
l
enquiry were
e never communicated to the pe
etitioner, thereby depriving him
m
of an opport
tunity to know the basis on wh
hich the ordinary procedure of
f
departmental
l enquiry had been dispensed wit
th.
13.
This Court in Gursher Singh S
Sandhu v. State of Punjab and
d
6 Law Finder (P&H) 26471 , wh
hile considering the settled legal
l
others, 2026
position enun
nciated by the Hon’ble Suprem
me Court in Union of India v.
atel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 , which h
has subsequently been reiterated
d
Tulsiram Pa
in a catena o
of judgments, has also reaffirmed
d that the normal rule is that an
n
employee can
n be dismissed, removed or redu
uced in rank only after holding a
a
departmental
l enquiry, in which the charges a
are communicated to him and he
e
is afforded
a reasonable opportunity of d
defending himself. It has been
n
observed as u
under:
“35. It is trite law that the decis
sion of the appointing authority on
n
the issue of ‘recording reasons in
n writing on its satisfaction as to
o
why holding an inquiry is not reaso
onably practicable’ may be subject
t
to judicial review under Article
226 by the High Court. The
e
Constitution Bench of the Hon'b
ble Supreme Court in Tulsiram
m
Patel’s case (supra) , has reit
terated the legal position and
d
authoritatively explained the scop
pe and ambit of Article 311(2) and
d
the second proviso thereto. The
Court has made it clear that the
e
p
power under Article 311(2)(b) is
an exceptional power and cannot
t
be exercised arbitrarily or merel
ly for the purpose of avoiding a
a
departmental enquiry. The conditi
ion precedent for invoking Clause
e
(b) is the existence of circumstanc
ces which render the holding of an
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(11)
enquiry not reasonably practicabl
le and the recording, in writing, of
f
reasons for the satisfaction of th
he disciplinary authority. It has
s
been held as under:
“32. The arguments adva
anced on behalf of the government
t
servants on the pleasure
doctrine and the second proviso
o
to Article 311 (2) may be sk
ketched in broad 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
n
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
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(12)
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 b
behalf of the Union of India can be
e
thus 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
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.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(13)
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
l service is not now or of recent
t
origin. Governments - wh
hether monarchial, dictatorial or
r
republican - have to fun
nction; and for carrying on the
e
administration and the var
ried functions of the government a
a
large number of persons ar
re required and have always been
n
required, whether they are
constituted in the form of a civil
l
service or not. Every king
gdom and country of the world
d
throughout history had a g
group of persons who helped the
e
ruler to administer the lan
nd, whether according to modern
n
notions we may call that gr
roup a civil service or not, because
e
it is not possible for one m
man by himself to rule and govern
n
the land and look after
and supervise all the details of
f
administration. As it was th
hroughout history, so it has been in
n
England and in India.
xx
xx xx
The Second P
Proviso to Article 311(2):
60. Clause (2) of Arti
icle 311 gives a constitutional
l
mandate to the principles of
of natural justice and audi alteram
m
partem rule by providing t
that a person employed in a civil
l
capacity under the Union o
or a State shall not be dismissed or
r
removed from service or red
duced in rank until after an inquiry
y
in which he has been inform
med of the charges against him and
d
has been given a reasonab
ble opportunity of being heard in
n
respect of those charges. To
To this extent, the pleasure doctrine
e
enacted in Article 310(
(1) is abridged because Article
e
311(2) is a express prov
vision of the Constitution. This
s
safeguard provided for a g
government servant by clause (2)
)
of Article 311 is, however,
r, taken away when the second
d
proviso to that clause bec
comes applicable. The safeguard
d
provided by clause(1) of Ar
rticle 311, however, remains intact
t
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(14)
and continues to be availab
ble to the government servant. The
e
second proviso to Article 3
311(2) becomes applicable in the
e
three cases mentioned in c
clauses (a) to (c) of that 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 pla
aced upon the second proviso and
d
the scope and effect of that
proviso were much debated at the
e
Bar. In Hira Lal Rattan L
Lal etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
,
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 502 this Co
ourt observed (at page 512) ;
"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 Incom
me Tax, Madras v. Madurai Mills
s
62 , this Court said (at page 669):
Co. Ltd., [1973] 3 S.C.R. 66
"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
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(15)
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 t
the second proviso is plan and
d
unambiguous. The key-wor
rds in the second proviso are "this
s
clause shall not apply". By
y "this clause" is meant clause(2).
As clause(2) requires an
inquiry to be held against a
a
government servant, the on
nly meaning attributable to these
e
words is that this inquiry sh
hall not be held. There is no scope
e
for any ambiguity in these
e words and there is no reason to
o
given them any meaning diff
fferent from the plain and ordinary
y
meaning which they bear. T
The resultant effect of these words
s
is that when a situation env
visaged in any of the three clauses
s
of the proviso arises and th
hat clause becomes applicable, the
e
safeguard provided to a go
overnment servant by clause (2) is
s
taken away. As pointed out
t earlier, this provision is as much
h
in public interest and for p
public good and a matter of public
c
policy as the pleasure do
octrine and the safeguards with
h
respect to security of tenure
re contained in clauses (1) and (2)
)
of Article 311.
xx
xx xx
129. The next contentio
on was that even if it is not
t
reasonably practicable to
hold an inquiry, a government
t
servant can be placed und
der suspension until the situation
n
improves and it becomes p
possible to hold the inquiry. This
s
contention also cannot be
accepted. Very often a situation
n
which makes it not reasona
ably practicable to hold an inquiry
y
is of the creation of the
e concerned government servant
t
himself or of himself acting
g in concert with others or of his
s
associates. It can even be
that he himself is not a party to
o
bringing about that situatio
on. In all such cases neither public
c
interest nor public good re
equires that salary or subsistence
e
allowance should be contin
nued to be paid out of the public
c
exchequer to the concerne
ed government servant. It should
d
also be borne in mind that
t in the case of a serious situation
n
which renders the holding
g of an inquiry not reasonably
y
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(16)
practicable, it would be d
difficult to foresee how long the
e
situation will last and wh
en normalcy would return or be
e
restored. It is impossible to
o draw the line as to the period of
f
time for which the suspen
nsion should continue and on the
e
expiry of that period action
n should be taken under clause (b)
)
of the second proviso. Fur
rther, the exigencies of a situation
n
may require that promp
t action should be taken and
d
suspending the government
t servant cannot serve the purpose.
Sometimes not taking promp
pt action may result in the trouble
e
spreading and the situation
worsening and at times becoming
g
uncontrolable. Not taking
g prompt action may also be
e
construed by the trouble-
makers and agitators as sign of
f
weakness on the part of th
he authorities and thus encourage
e
them to step up the tempo o
of their activities or agitation. It is
s
true that when prompt actio
on is taken in order to prevent this
s
happening, there is an elem
ment of deterrence in it but that is
s
an unavoidable and nece
essary concomitance of such an
n
action resulting from a situ
uation which is not of the creation
n
of the authorities. After al
ll, clause (b) is not meant to be
e
applied in ordinary, norma
al situations but in such situations
s
where is not reasonably pra
acticable to hold an inquiry.
130. The condition preced
dent for the application of clause
e
(b) is the satisfaction of th
e disciplinary authority that "it is
s
not reasonably practicable
to hold" the inquiry contemplated
d
by clause (2) of Article 311
1. What is pertinent to note is that
t
the words used are "not
reasonably practicable" and not
t
"impracticable". According
g to the Oxford English Dictionary
y
"practicable" means "Cap
pable of being put into practice,
carried out in action, ef
ffected, accomplished, or done;
;
feasible". Webster's Third
d New International Dictionary
y
defines the word "pract
ticable" inter alia as meaning
g
"possible to practice or pe
erform: capable of being put into
o
practice, done or accomplis
shed : feasible". Further, the words
s
used are not "not pra
acticable" but "not reasonably
y
practicable". Webster's Th
ird New International Dictionary
y
defines the word "reasonab
bly" as "in a reasonable manner :
:
to a fairly sufficient extent"
". Thus, whether it was practicable
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(17)
to hold the inquiry or not
must be judged in the context of
f
whether it was reasonably
practicable to do so. It is not a
a
total or absolute impractica
ability which is required by clause
e
(b). What is requisite is tha
at the holding of the inquiry is not
t
practicable in the opinion
n of a reasonable man taking a
a
reasonable view of the prev
vailing situation. It is not possible
e
to enumerate the cases in
which it would not be reasonably
y
practicable to hold the inqu
uiry, but some instances by way of
f
illustration may, however
r, be given. It would not be
e
reasonably practicable to
o hold an inquiry where the
e
government servant, particu
ularly through or together with his
s
associates, so terrorizes, t
threatens or intimidate witnesses
s
who are going to given ev
vidence against him with fear of
f
reprisal as to prevent the
em from doing so or where the
e
government servant by him
mself or together with or through
h
other threatens, intimidates
s and terrorizes the officer who is
s
the disciplinary authority o
or member of his family so that he
e
is afraid to hold the inquir
ry or direct it to be held. It would
d
also not be reasonably pra
cticable to hold the inquiry where
e
an atmosphere of violence
e or of general indiscipline and
d
insubordination prevails, a
and it is immaterial whether the
e
concerned government serv
vant is or is not a party to bringing
g
about such an atmosphere.
In this connection, we must bear
r
in mind that numbers coerc
rce and terrify while an individual
l
may not. The reasonable pr
racticability of holding an inquiry
y
is a matter of assessment
t to be made by the disciplinary
y
authority. Such authority is
s generally on the spot and knows
s
what is happening. It is bec
cause the disciplinary authority is
s
the best judge of this that c
clause (3) of Article 311 makes the
e
decision of the disciplinary
authority on this question final. A
A
disciplinary authority is n
not expected to dispense with a
a
disciplinary inquiry lightly
y 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 mus
st fail. The finality given to the
e
decision of the disciplinary
y authority by Article 311(3) is not
t
binding upon the court so fa
ar as its power of judicial review is
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(18)
concerned and in such a c
ase the court will strike down the
e
order dispensing with the i
nquiry as also the order imposing
g
penalty. The case of Arjun
Chaubey v. Union of India and
d
others, [1984] 3 S.C.R. 30
02, is an instance in point. In that
t
case, the appellant was wor
rking as a senior clerk in the office
e
of the Chief Commercial S
Superintendent, Northern Railway,
Varanasi. The Senior Comm
mercial Officer wrote a letter to the
e
appellant calling upon him
m to submit his explanation with
h
regard to twelve charges of
f gross indiscipline mostly relating
g
to the Deputy Chief C
Commercial Superintendent. The
e
appellant submitted his exp
planation and on the very next day
y
the Deputy Chief Commerci
ial Superintendent served a second
d
notice on the appellant say
ying that his explanation was not
t
convincing and that another
r chance was being given to him to
o
offer his explanation with
h respect to those charges. The
e
appellant submitted his fur
rther explanation but on the very
y
next day the Deputy Chief C
Commercial Superintendent passed
d
an order dismissing him on
n the ground that he was not fit to
o
be retained in service. Th
his Court struck down the order
r
holding that seven out of
of twelve charges related to the
e
conduct of the appellant w
with the Deputy Chief Commercial
l
Superintendent who was the
e disciplinary authority and that if
f
an inquiry were to be he
eld, the principal witness for the
e
Department would have be
een the Deputy Chief Commercial
l
Superintendent himself, res
sulting in the same person being
g
the main accuser, the chief
f witness and also the judge of the
e
matter.
xx
xx xx
133. The second condi
ition necessary for the valid
d
application of clause (b) o
of the second proviso is that the
e
disciplinary authority shou
ld record in writing its reason for
r
its satisfaction that it was n
not reasonably practicable to hold
d
the inquiry contemplated
d by Article 311(2). This is a
a
Constitutional obligation an
nd if such reason is not recorded in
n
writing, the order dispensin
ng with the inquiry and the order of
f
penalty following thereup
pon would both be void and
d
unconstitutional.”
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(19)
xx
xx xx
41. In view of the settled propo
osition of law, as discussed above,
and on overall analysis of the
e intent of Article 311(2) of the
e
Constitution, it is vivid that an em
mployee can only be dismissed or
r
removed or reduced in rank aft
fter an inquiry by supplying the
e
charges against him and giving a
a reasonable opportunity of being
g
heard in respect of those charges,
, however, the applicability of the
e
exceptional proviso of clause (b)
of second proviso to Article 311
(2) of Constitution of India is r
restricted to a situation, wherein
n
conduct of the delinquent led to his
s conviction of criminal charges or
r
where the authority empowered w
who dismissed, removed or reduced
d
in rank, records reason in writin
ng upon satisfaction that it is not
t
‘reasonably practicable’ to hold
d an enquiry against him. The
e
disciplinary authority must not dis
spense with an enquiry merely on
n
the basis of its subjective sa
atisfaction or by mechanically
y
reproducing the language of Arti
icle 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
The reasons must demonstrate the
e existence of circumstances which
h
genuinely render the holding
of the enquiry impracticable.
Ordinarily, circumstances such
as witnesses being unwilling to
o
depose on account of threats,
intimidation or coercion may
y
constitute relevant considerations.
However, the mere seriousness of
f
the allegations or the possibility
that the delinquent employee may
y
not cooperate cannot, by its
tself, satisfy the constitutional
l
requirement. The wording as u
used in clause (b) of the second
d
p
proviso indicates the satisfaction
of the Disciplinary Authority by
y
using the word “it is not reasonab
ly practicable to hold” the inquiry
y
contemplated by clause (2) of A
rticle 311. The Hon’ble Supreme
e
Court emphasized the meaning of
f “not reasonably practicable” as
s
j
juxtaposed against not “impract
ticable”. The Hon’ble Supreme
e
Court clarified that the disciplin
nary authority is not expected to
o
dispense with a departmental inqu
uiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of
f
ulterior motives or merely in order
r to avoid the holding of an inquiry
y
or because the Department’s case
against the government servant is
s
weak and may fail. Further, the C
Court emphasised the words used in
n
clause (b) of second proviso that
t the disciplinary authority should
d
record its reasons in writing for
r its satisfaction that holding an
n
inquiry is not reasonably practic
able. In case, such reason is not
t
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(20)
recorded in writing or not valid an
nd justifiable, the order dispensing
g
with the inquiry and the order of p
penalty flowing therefrom would be
e
void and unconstitutional. In tha
t situation, it remains always open
n
to the Court to take the case out
of purview of that clause and the
e
order of penalty would stand inval
idated.”
In Gursher Singh Sandhu’s ca
14.
ase (supra), this Court had also
o
taken into co
onsideration the guidelines/instru
uctions dated 02.09.2022 issued
d
by the Direc
tor General of Police, Punjab, C
Chandigarh, in compliance with
h
the direction
ns issued by this Court vide ord
der dated 04.07.2022 passed in
n
CWP-13285
5-2022, titled Ex. Constable V
Vikas No.950/FZR v. State of
f
others . The said guidelines wer
e noticed in the backdrop of the
e
Punjab and
manner in w
which the provisions of Article 3
311(2)(b) of the Constitution of
f
India had be
een invoked by the State of Pun
njab in a large number of cases
s
without strict
t adherence to the constitutional
l safeguards for dispensing with
h
regular depa
artmental enquiry. While consid
dering the aforesaid aspect, this
s
Court observ
ved as under:
“42. This Court has also noticed
d the manner in which the State of
f
Punjab has invoked Article 311(2)
)(b) of the Constitution in a large
e
number of cases. In CWP-13285-
-2022 titled ‘Ex. Constable Vikas
s
b & others’ this Court, vide order
r
N
No.950/FZR Vs. State of Punjab
dated 04.07.2022, observed as und
der:
“xx
xx xx
This Court has notic
ced while dealing with the current
t
roster, that a large numbe
er of writ petitions are being filed
d
against the order of dismis
ssal invoking Article 311(2)(b) of
f
the Constitution of India.
. The competent authorities are
e
ignoring the law as settled
d by the Supreme Court regarding
g
dismissal of an employee
e under Article 311(2)(b) of the
e
Constitution of India, whic
ch leads to the impugned orders
s
being set aside.
It might be appropr
riate for the State Governments to
o
look into this issue and a
apprise the competent authorities
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(21)
about the relevant case la
aw pertaining to invoking Article
e
311(2)(b) of the Constitutio
on of India at the time of seeking to
o
summarily dismiss the Gove
ernment employees.
Let a copy of this
order be conveyed to the Chief
f
Secretaries of the States of
f Punjab and Haryana as well as
s
the Advisor to Administrato
or, U.T., Chandigarh.”
43. In compliance of said dire
ections, the office of the Director
r
General of Police, Pu
unjab, Chandigarh, issued
d
guidelines/instructions dated 02.09
9.2022, which reads thus:
“Subject:- Guidelines/Ins
structions for compliance of the
e
Orders of th
he Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana
a
High Court, p
pertaining to invoking Article 311
1
(2) (B) of th
he Constitution of India in cases
s
involving dism
missal of an employee/official.
Memo
1. In this regard, the H
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
h
Court has issued directions
in the Civil Writ Petition 13285 of
f
2022 titled as Ex Constabl
le Vikas No. 950/FZR Vs State of
f
Punjab and others on 04.07
7.2022 that:-
"xx
xx xx"
2. That in compliance w
with the aforesaid directions of the
e
Hon'ble High Court,
this office is issuing
g
guidelines/instructions for
the basic understanding of the
e
Article 311 (2) (b) while
invoking the same in cases of
f
dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank of the
e
employee/official. It has b
een seen in many cases that the
e
order passed by the Compe
etent Authorities under Article 311
(2) (b) have failed in the
Hon'ble Courts and the Hon'ble
e
Courts have set aside such
dismissal order of the personnels
s
time and again and reinsta
ated them in service. The Hon'ble
e
Courts have also observed
in numerous cases that decision to
o
dispense with the departm
mental enquiry cannot be rested
d
solely on the ipse dixit of th
he concerned authorities. It is well
l
settled proposition of law t
that due reasons are necessary to
o
be recorded in writing as
s to why it was not practicably
y
possible to conduct an enqu
uiry.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(22)
3. That the Hon'ble Sup
preme Court of India and Hon'ble
e
High Courts, in catena of j
judgments have specifically made
e
clear that order of dism
issal is not to be passed in a
a
mechanical manner. It has
also been held that only in cases
s
where disciplinary authori
ities are satisfied on the basis of
f
material available on file th
hat the case is of such a nature that
t
it is not practicable possib
ble to hold an enquiry in view of
f
threat, inducement, affiliati
ion with criminals etc. that article
e
311(2) (b) of Constitution of
of India, is to be invoked.
4. That the Hon'ble Su
upreme Court of India and High
h
Courts have delivered
various judgments on the
e
interpretations of Article 31
11 (2) (b). Few are mentioned here
e
and are required to be fo
ollowed in letter and spirit while
e
dealing in cases involvin
ng Article 311 (2) (b) of the
e
Constitution of India.
1. The Hon'ble S
Supreme Court of India in Union
n
am Patel & others , judgment dated
d
of India Vs Tulsi Ra
11.07.1985 is well
traversed and has clarified the
e
constitutional provis
ions as embodied in Article 311(2)
)
of the Constitution.
The judgment is detailed and is a
a
settled law pertaini
ing to matters involving article
e
311(2)(b) of the Cons
stitution of India.
2. In CWP No.1
15903 titled as Dinesh Singh Vs
s
others decided on 30.08.2016 , the
e
State of Punjab & o
Hon'ble Court has h
held "Constitution of India, 1950
0
Article 311 (2) du
ue reasons are necessary to be
e
recorded as to why
it was not practicably possible to
o
conduct an enquiry
or how it was not convenient to
o
authority or inquiry
officer to conduct an enquiry-said
d
provisions are attra
acted by exercising extraordinary
y
powers under extrao
ordinary circumstances- absence of
f
extraordinary circum
mstances while invoking provisions
s
of article 311 (2) (b)
can be termed as misuse of power
r
and as such, action
of the authority is not sustainable
e
in the eyes of law.
3. The Hon'ble P
Punjab & Haryana High Court in
n
CWP No. 10423 of 2
2020 titled Sarabjit Singh Vs State
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(23)
of Punjab & others
s has held that authority chose to
o
dismiss petitioner w
without holding Inquiry- careful
l
reading of the impug
gned order shows that there is total
l
absence of reasons
in this regard- mere observation
n
that departmental
enquiry at this stage does not
t
appear to be justified
d is not sufficient to invoke powers
s
under clause (b) of th
he 2nd proviso to article 311(2) of
f
the Constitution of I
India. Petitioner directly to be re-
-
instated.
5. It should also be ens
sured that recording in writing of
f
the reasons for dispensing
with the enquiry must precede an
n
order imposing the penalty
. Legally speaking the reasons for
r
dispensing with the enquiry
ry need not find place in the final
l
order itself though they sho
ould be recorded separately in the
e
relevant file. In spite of th
his legal position, it would be of
f
advantage to incorporate
e the reasons which lead the
e
disciplinary authority to
the conclusion that it was not
t
reasonably practicable to
hold an enquiry. The reasons so
o
given should not be vagu
ue or they should not be just a
a
repetition of the language of
of the relevant rules.
6. That the aforementi
ioned guidelines/instructions and
d
the relevant detailed case
e laws are to be examined and
d
followed by the concern
ned disciplinary authority while
e
invoking article 311(2)(b)
b) Constitution of India. These
e
guidelines/instructions alon
ngwith relevant case laws are to be
e
strictly adhered and their
meticulous compliance is to be
e
ensured.”
44. It has also been noticed by
y this Court that, in a number of
f
cases, Police Officers/Officials ha
ave been dismissed from service by
y
invoking the provisions of Artic
cle 311(2)(b) of the Constitution
n
merely on account of registration o
of an FIR against them…………
xxx
xxx xxx
54. It is also apt to state here
e that the State Government itself,
f
through the guidelines/instruction
ns dated 02.09.2022, issued by the
e
office of the Director General of
f Police, Punjab, had drawn the
e
attention of the competent author
rities to the settled legal position
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(24)
that orders under Article 311(2)(b)
b) of the Constitution should not be
e
p
passed mechanically and that r
reasons for dispensing with the
e
enquiry must be supported by mate
erial available on record. The said
d
guidelines specifically caution tha
at the decision to dispense with a
a
departmental enquiry cannot rest
merely upon the ipse dixit of the
e
competent authority and that the
e reasons must not be vague or
r
merely reproduction of the langu
uage of the relevant constitutional
l
p
provision.
xxx
xxx xxx
56. While considering the provi
isions of Article 311(2)(b) vis-à-vis
s
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a Coo
ordinate Bench in Baljinder Singh
h
v. State of Punjab & others ,
, ( CWP-8612-2021 decided on
n
13.05.2024 ), observed as under:
“3. Mr. Anupam Bhardw
dwaj, Advocate submits that there
e
was no occasion to dis
spense with mandatory inquiry
y
contemplated by Article 3
11 of Constitution of India read
d
with Rule 16.24 of the 1934
4 Rules. The respondents acting in
n
a mechanical manner disp
ensed with inquiry and dismissed
d
the petitioner from servic
ce. The co-accused was initially
y
suspended and he has been
re-instated.
4. Per contra, Mr. Paw
wan Kumar, DAG, Punjab submits
s
that petitioner accepted ille
egal gratification from accused in
n
aforementioned FIRs, thus
s, it was indispensable to dismiss
s
him from service. It was no
t possible to conduct inquiry, thus,
he was dismissed without co
onducting inquiry.
xx
xx xx
8. The reason advanc
ced by SSP for dispensing with
h
inquiry is not the actual r
reason because same reason has
s
been advanced in every c
case where there is FIR against
t
serving police officer. Th
he respondent can dispense with
h
inquiry if actually it is not
practicable to hold inquiry. Mere
e
writing one line in the
impugned order that it is not
t
practicable to hold inquiry
y is not compliance of mandate of
f
either Constitution of Ind
dia or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab
b
Police Rules. The respon
ndent instead of straight away
y
dismissing the petitioner co
ould put him under suspension and
d
thereafter conduct inquiry.
This course was adopted in the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(25)
case of co-accused, thus,
there was no reason to adopt
t
different course in the case
e of petitioner. It is interesting to
o
note that FIR was registere
ed against the petitioner as well as
s
HC Jatinder Singh and
he has been re-instated before
e
awaiting conclusion of crim
minal proceedings.
9. In the wake of abo
ove discussion and findings, this
s
Court is of the considered
opinion that respondents without
t
any logical reason dispens
sed with mandatory inquiry. The
e
impugned orders deserve to
o be set aside and accordingly set
t
aside.
It is made clear that
t petitioner, as conceded, shall not
t
be entitled to back wages. T
The respondent shall be free either
r
to conduct departmental
l inquiry after following due
e
procedure prescribed by
Punjab Police Rules or take
e
appropriate decision af
after conclusion of criminal
l
proceedings.”
57. In Rakesh Kumar v. State o
of Punjab & others , ( CWP-14712-
-
2017 decided on 25.04.2022 ), this
Court observed as under:
“8. The petitioners were
e appointed as Constables with the
e
Punjab Police and were di
ismissed from service by invoking
g
Article 311(2) (b) of the C
Constitution of India as FIR No.74
4
dated 25.07.2014, under Se
ection 384 of the IPC and Section 7
7
and 8 of the Prevention of
f Corruption Act, 1988 came to be
e
registered against them. T
The date of dismissal is the same
e
date as the date of registrat
tion of the FIR. While dismissing a
a
government servant under A
Article 311 (2) (b), the appropriate
e
disciplinary authority has t
to record reasons in writing that it
t
does not consider it reaso
onably practicable to give to the
e
person an opportunity of
showing cause. The satisfaction
n
under this clause has to be
e of the disciplinary authority that
t
has the power to dismiss, r
remove or reduce the Government
t
servant in rank. As a chec
ck against an arbitrary use of this
s
exception, it has been provi
ided that the reasons for which the
e
competent authority decide
es to do away with the prescribed
d
procedure must be record
ded in writing setting out why it
t
would not be practicable.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (O&M)
(26)
9. On perusal of impu
ugned order of termination, it is
s
apparent that no reasons w
whatsoever have been recorded to
o
show as to how the provisio
ons of Article 311 (2) (b) have been
n
attracted. A reading of the
impugned order would show that
t
the reason for dispensing of
of holding a regular enquiry is that
t
a finding is given that no
witness is likely to come forth to
o
depose and that the petitio
oner has a criminal mentality, but
t
there is no material availab
ble to support this ground.
xx
xx xx
11. The law is this regar
rd is no longer res intergra, as can
n
be noticed from the judgem
ments as cited above. Therefore the
e
impugned orders would not
t be sustainable.
12. Another reason for s
setting aside the impugned orders
s
is that a co-accused in the
e FIR, who was also dismissed by
y
the authorities while dispe
ensing with regular enquiry, had
d
filed an appeal before
the Additional Chief Secretary
y
Government of Punjab, D
Department of Home Affairs and
d
Justice and the said appea
l was allowed holding that it was
s
not fair to dismiss the a
appellant with hearing and that
t
departmental proceedings
were liable to be initiated. The
e
appellant Harjap Singh sto
ood reinstated and the period from
m
date of dismissal till reinst
tatement was to be treated as Non
n
Duty Period. The petitione
ers who are similarly situated as
s
said Harjap Singh, too sh
hould be given an opportunity of
f
hearing.
13. Consequently the w
rit petitions are allowed and the
e
impugned order dismissing
g the petitioners from service vide
e
order 25.07.2014 (Annexur
re P-3) and the orders passed on
n
the statutory appeal dated
d 02.03.2016 (Annexure P-6), by
y
respondent No.4 and order
r dated 16.04.2016 (Annexure P-8)
)
passed by respondent No.3
in revision, are set aside leaving it
t
open to the department to
take departmental action against
t
the petitioners in accordanc
ce with law, if needed.”
58. The power under Article
311(2)(b) cannot, therefore, be
e
invoked merely because the discip
plinary authority apprehends that
t
the delinquent employee may not
t cooperate with the proceedings.
There must exist some objective
circumstance which makes a fair
r
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(27)
enquiry genuinely impracticable.
Circumstances, such as, threats,
intimidation or coercion of witnes
sses, interference with the Enquiry
y
Officer, or tampering with eviden
nce may ordinarily furnish a valid
d
basis. However, no such circumsta
ance has been demonstrated in the
e
present case.”
p
Recently, the Hon’ble Suprem
15.
me Court in Manohar Lal v.
SCC OnLine SC 363 has again
n
Commission
er of Police & others, 2026 S
held that the
e reasons recorded by the discip
plinary authority must establish
h
the existence
e of circumstances which render
r the holding of a departmental
l
enquiry not
reasonably practicable. The pow
wer cannot be exercised on the
e
basis of a m
mere ipse dixit or an unsubstanti
iated apprehension. It has been
n
held as under
r:
“35. In the case at hand after
registration of the FIR when the
e
appellant was in custody the order
r of dismissal was passed. He was
s
released only thereafter. As such,
without indicating any instance of
f
intimidation, traumatising, thr
reatening or persuading the
e
complainant or the witness to tur
rn hostile from inside the jail, the
e
belief or presumption as recorded
by the disciplinary authority is not
t
sufficient to bring the present cas
se within the exception to Article
e
311 (2) by applying clause (b) of se
econd proviso thereto. Thus, in our
r
view, the reasoning contemplated
in the judgment of Jaswant Singh
h
(Supra) applies in the case at hand
d.
xx
xx xx
40. On overall analysis of the
intent of Article 311(2), it is vivid
d
that an employee holding a post i
in Union or State ought not to be
e
dismissed or removed by an aut
thority subordinate to the one by
y
which he was appointed. It is furth
her specified that a person shall be
e
dismissed or removed or reduced
in rank after an inquiry supplying
g
the charges if any against him an
d giving a reasonable opportunity
y
of being heard in respect of those
e charges. The applicability of the
e
said clause is restricted in a situat
tion wherein his conduct led to his
s
conviction of criminal charges or
r where the authority empowered
d
who dismissed, removed or red
duced in rank records reason in
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(28)
writing upon satisfaction that it i
is not ‘reasonably practicable’ to
o
hold an enquiry against him. In
addition, where such power has
s
been exercised by the President o
or the Governor it may be in the
e
interest of security of the State or
r if not expedient to hold such an
n
enquiry, then exceptional power u
under clause (c) of second proviso
o
to Article 311 ought to be exercised
d.
41. In case such a decision inv
voking the extraordinary power is
s
taken by the competent authority
in light of the judgment Tulsiram
m
Patel (Supra) within the param
meter as discussed, the scope of
f
j
judicial review is available to the
Constitutional Courts wherein the
e
reasons as assigned for satisfa
action of the authority must be
e
reasonable, valid, justified and
d in writing. In addition, the
e
satisfaction as recorded must be
the objective satisfaction on the
e
basis of material brought on record
rd which ordinarily the disciplinary
y
authority may take as a prudent p
person. Otherwise, dispensing with
h
the enquiry is not permissible in la
aw. In the present case, Section 21
of the 1978 Act confers power
r of punishment and Section 22
2
p
prescribes the procedure for a
awarding such punishment. The
e
p
procedure as contemplated has
been elaborated under the 1980
0
Rules. In the present case, in our
r view, the power exercised by the
e
authority is completely without
application of mind, thus, the
e
question of recording of satisfact
tion as affirmed by the appellate
e
authority, the CAT and the High C
Court does not arise. Therefore, we
e
can hold that the order dispensin
ng with the regular procedure of
f
inquiry is arbitrary and conseque
ently the order of dismissal of the
e
appellant is liable to be quashed a
and the orders of the CAT and the
e
High Court affirming the said dism
missal order stand set aside.”
Applying the aforesaid princip
16.
ples to the facts of the present
t
case, this Co
ourt is of the considered view th
hat the reasons recorded by the
e
competent a
authority are not in compliance
e of mandate prescribed under
r
Article 311(2
2)(b) of the Constitution or Rule
e 16.24 of the PPR. The reasons
s
proceed on th
he basis of an apprehension that
the petitioner may influence the
e
complainant
or witnesses. Such apprehens
ion, without disclosure of any
y
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(29)
cumstances, cannot constitute a
concrete circ
valid basis for dispensing with
h
the enquiry.
17.
This Court also finds that, altho
ough the petitioner had preferred
d
a detailed app
peal against the order dated 12.0
06.2021 (Annexure P-2), but the
e
appellate aut
thority, while passing the order
dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-
-
4), failed to
examine whether the essential
conditions for invoking Article
e
311(2)(b) of
f the Constitution of India were
e satisfied or not. The appellate
e
authority, af
fter merely reproducing the a
allegations levelled against the
e
petitioner, re
ejected the appeal by observing
that no valid ground had been
n
made out. H
However, no consideration has
been given to the length of 27
7
years of ser
rvice and credential service r
record. Neither the appellate
e
authority ha
as independently considered t
the reasons recorded by the
e
punishing au
uthority for dispensing with the d
departmental enquiry, nor has it
t
examined wh
hether the circumstances actuall
ly rendered the holding of such
h
enquiry reaso
onably impracticable within the
meaning of Article 311(2)(b) of
f
the Constitut
tion of India. Therefore, this C
Court is of the opinion that the
e
respondents
without any justifiable reaso
on, circumstance or substance
e
dispensed wi
ith the mandatory fair enquiry.
18.
This Court also finds merit in th
he submission of learned senior
r
counsel for th
he petitioner that the punishmen
nt imposed upon the petitioner is
s
harsh and no
t in consonance with Rule 16.2 o
of the PPR. Rule 16.2 of PPR is
s
reproduced a
as below:
" 16.2. Dismissal. - (1) Dismissa
l shall be awarded only for the
e
gravest acts of misconduct or as
the cumulative effect of continued
d
misconduct proving incorrigibility
y and complete unfitness for police
e
service. In making such an award
d regard shall be had to the length
h
of service of the offender and his c
claim to pension.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(30)
(2) If the conduct of an enro
olled police officer leads to his
s
conviction on a criminal cha
arge and he is sentenced to
o
imprisonment, he shall be dismisse
ed:
Provided that a punishing
authority may, in an exceptional
l
case involving manifestly extenua
ating circumstances for reasons to
o
be recorded and with the prior app
proval of the next higher authority
y
impose any punishment other than
that of dismissal:
Provided further that in ca
ase the conviction of an enrolled
d
p
police officer is set aside in
appeal or revision, the officer
r
empowered to appoint him shall re
eview his case keeping in view the
e
instructions issued by the Gover
rnment from time to time in this
s
behalf.
(3) When a police officer is con
nvicted judicially and dismissed, or
r
dismissed as a result of a departm
mental enquiry, in consequence of
f
corrupt practices, the conviction a
and dismissal and its cause shall be
e
p
published in the Police Gazette. In
other cases of dismissal when it is
s
desired to ensure that the officer d
dismissed shall not be re-employed
d
elsewhere, a full descriptive
roll, with particulars of the
e
p
punishments, shall be sent for publ
lication in the Police Gazette."
A perusal of the above Rule m
19.
makes it evident that dismissal
l
shall be awa
arded only for the gravest act
ts of misconduct or where the
e
cumulative e
effect of continued misconduct e
stablishes the incorrigibility and
d
complete unf
fitness of the delinquent official
l for police service. It is further
r
evident that,
while awarding such a punishm
ment, due regard shall be had to
o
the length of
f service rendered by the delin
nquent official and his claim to
o
pension. In
the present case, the petitio
oner had admittedly rendered
d
approximatel
ly 27 years of service in the
Punjab Police and had earned
d
Commendati
ion Certificates for his perform
mance of official duties. These
e
relevant fact
ors were, therefore, required to
o be duly taken into account by
y
the competen
nt authority while awarding pe
enalty of dismissal. However,
,
neither the o
order of dismissal dated 12.06.
.2021 (Annexure P-2) nor the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-24029-2022 (
(O&M)
(31)
26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) re
order dated
ejecting the petitioner’s appeal
l
reflects any c
consideration of the length of se
rvice rendered by the petitioner,
,
his past serv
vice record or his claim to pen
nsion, as specifically mandated
d
under Rule 1
6.2 of the PPR.
20.
In view of the above discussion,
, this Court is of the opinion that
t
the impugne
ed order dated 12.06.2021 (An
nnexure P-2) suffers from non-
-
compliance w
with the mandatory requiremen
nts of Article 311(2)(b) of the
e
Constitution
of India. The appellate order da
ated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4),
,
which merel
ly affirms the said order of
dismissal without curing the
e
fundamental
defect, also cannot be sustained
.
21.
Consequently, the present petitio
on is allowed. The order/s dated
d
12.06.2021 (
(Annexure P-2) and 26.08.202
22 (Annexure P-4) are hereby
y
quashed. Th
he respondents are directed to re
einstate the petitioner in service
e
with all cons
equential benefits.
22.
However, the setting aside of the
e impugned orders and direction
n
for reinstatem
ment shall be without prejudice t
to the right of the respondents to
o
take recourse
e in accordance with law. The re
espondents shall be free either to
o
conduct depa
artmental inquiry after followin
ng due procedure prescribed by
y
Punjab Polic
e Rules or take appropriate decis
sion after conclusion of criminal
l
proceedings.
02.11.2026
Vimal/mkkoun
ndal
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
Yes/No
Yes/No
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Whether reportable:
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.02 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.