Punjab Cop Dismissed On FIR Day In 350kg Poppy-Husk Case Reinstated As P&H HC Finds No Specific Basis To Skip Inquiry

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector with over 31 years’ service, was dismissed on 6 August 2021 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, without a departmental inquiry.

The dismissal followed his arrest and registration of an NDPS case alleging recovery of 350 kg of poppy husk; the FIR and dismissal order were made on the same day.

His statutory appeal, filed on 7 August 2021, remained undecided for nearly four years.

After the petitioner approached the High Court, the appeal was consigned to the office on the ground that it had been received before the appellate authority’s final order and that a revision could be filed only thereafter.

Article 311(2) ordinarily requires an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to answer the charges; under its second proviso, clause (b), the competent authority may dispense with an inquiry only where it records in writing a reasoned satisfaction, supported by relevant material, that holding the inquiry is not reasonably practicable.

Under Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, this exceptional power cannot be used arbitrarily, mechanically, or merely to avoid an inquiry, and its exercise remains subject to judicial review.

The Court also relied on Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 363, for the requirement of objective circumstances rather than an unsupported apprehension.

Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, requires dismissal to be reserved for the gravest misconduct or the cumulative effect of misconduct demonstrating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, making the officer’s service and record relevant to the decision.

The Court additionally referred to the Punjab DGP’s guidelines dated 2 September 2022, which caution against vague or formulaic reasons for dispensing with an inquiry.

The dismissal order relied on the alleged seriousness of the NDPS offence, the asserted harm to the police force’s image, and the view that the petitioner’s continued service could be detrimental to the State and public.

It identified no specific threat, intimidation, interference with an inquiry officer, or tampering with evidence that made an inquiry impracticable; the respondents’ later general assertion that police witnesses may be reluctant to testify did not supply that missing, case-specific basis.

The fact that the petitioner was a police officer did not justify presuming that witnesses could not depose freely.

The order’s recital that the authority had independently considered the matter also failed to establish the required rational nexus between actual circumstances and the impracticability of an inquiry.

Further, neither the dismissal order nor the appeal order showed consideration of the petitioner’s lengthy service, service record, or pension claim, and the appeal order did not address the merits of his challenge.

It allowed the petition, quashed the dismissal order dated 6 August 2021 and the appeal order dated 19 June 2025, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

The respondents remain free to conduct a departmental inquiry in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules or to take an appropriate decision after conclusion of the criminal proceedings.