P&H HC Reinstates ASI Dismissed After Extortion FIR, Says Mere Witness-Influence Fears Couldn’t Justify Skipping Inquiry

Kashmiri Lal, an Assistant Sub-Inspector with approximately 27 years’ service, was arrested in connection with an FIR alleging extortion and related offences.

While he was in judicial custody, the Commissioner of Police dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, without a regular departmental inquiry.

The authority separately recorded that an inquiry was impracticable because the petitioner might influence the complainant or witnesses.

His appeal was rejected, and he challenged both orders before the High Court.

The petitioner also relied on his service record and commendation certificates; the respondents maintained that the allegations and risk of witness influence justified dispensing with an inquiry.

Article 311(2) ordinarily requires an inquiry before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; its second proviso, clause (b), permits dispensing with an inquiry only where the competent authority records in writing an objectively supported satisfaction that holding it is not reasonably practicable.

Under Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, the exception cannot be invoked arbitrarily or on a bare apprehension; the recorded reasons must disclose circumstances making an inquiry reasonably impracticable, and are subject to judicial review.

The Court also relied on Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 363, which held that an unsubstantiated apprehension of witness influence does not suffice.

Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules governs departmental inquiries, while Rule 16.2 provides that dismissal is reserved for the gravest misconduct or the cumulative effect of misconduct establishing incorrigibility and complete unfitness, with due regard to length of service and pension entitlement.

The separate order dispensing with the inquiry relied principally on the petitioner’s alleged association with other accused and an apprehension that he might influence the complainant or witnesses.

The Court found no sufficiently specific or substantiated circumstances demonstrating why witnesses could not be protected or examined through a regular inquiry; the seriousness of the allegations and registration of an FIR did not independently satisfy Article 311(2)(b).

The appellate authority likewise failed to independently assess whether an inquiry was impracticable and did not address the petitioner’s service record, approximately 27 years of service, commendations or pension claim.

Accordingly, the orders failed both the constitutional test for dispensing with an inquiry and the relevant requirements of Rule 16.2.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits, without prejudice to their right to conduct a departmental inquiry in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules or take an appropriate decision after conclusion of the criminal proceedings.