Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harsajanbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 November, 2025

CWP No.34598 of 2025                -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                               CWP No.34598 of 2025
                                               Date of Decision:20.11.2025
Harsajanbir Singh


                                                                  ....Petitioner

                                       vs.
State of Punjab and others

                                                                 ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:     Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate
             Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate
             Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate
             Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

               ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated

19.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submits that by order dated 19.10.2020, the petitioner was dismissed from

service without holding departmental inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24

of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read with Article 311 of Constitution of India.

The dismissal order was passed on account of registration of FIR No.346

dated 14.10.2020 under Sections 21 and 61 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police

Station Civil Lines, Batala. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted

1 of 5

inquiry and found him innocent. Challan has been presented against other

accused and name of petitioner is recorded in Column No.2. He preferred

appeal before Appellate Authority against order of dismissal from service

and Appellate Authority has dismissed the same vide impugned order dated

01.10.2025 (Annexure-12).

3. Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert that

petitioner was found innocent in the investigation of FIR No. 346 dated

14.10.2020. Challan was presented against other accused and name of

petitioner was recorded in Column No. 2.

4. From the perusal of record, it is evident beyond the pale of

doubt that petitioner was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry

as contemplated by Rule 16.24 of PPR read with Article 311 of the

Constitution of India. As per Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311 (2)

of the Constitution of India, inquiry may be dispensed with (i) where person

is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which

has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the competent

authority finds that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(iii) where President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the

security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. For the ready

reference, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

" 311 (2)- No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Provided that where it is proposed after

2 of 5

such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry."

5. A Constitutional Bench in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel,

(1985) 3 SCC 398, has observed that while invoking the rigor of Clause (b)

of second-proviso to Article 311(2), if disciplinary authority failed to record

any reason as to why it is not practicable to hold inquiry, such an order is

void and unconstitutional. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

" 133. The second condition necessary for the valid application of clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a constitutional obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the

3 of 5

inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional."

6. In the case in hand, while dispensing with departmental inquiry,

the disciplinary authority vide order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) has

observed as under:-

" In normal circumstances regular departmental enquiry should be conducted before awarding severe punishment but keeping in view his conduct he will threaten the witnesses and influence the regular departmental enquiry. Because of the reasons stated above I being the authority empowered to dismiss. I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry into the allegations against the accused Constable Harsajanbir Singh No. 2450/Amritsar. As such, holding of inquiry is dispensed with as envisaged in Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India."

7. The reasons advanced by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar

City for dispensing with inquiry are not plausible reasons. The respondent

can dispense with inquiry if actually it is not practicable to hold the inquiry.

Mere writing that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not compliance of

mandate of either Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of PPR. The

respondent instead of straight away dismissing the petitioner could put him

under suspension and thereafter conduct inquiry.

8. Considering the afore-stated factual and legal position, this

Court finds it appropriate to set aside impugned orders dated 19.10.2020

(Annexure P-3) and direct respondent to conduct inquiry in terms of Rule

4 of 5

16.24 of PPR. The petitioner shall not be deemed to be reinstated on account