[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babu Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 January, 2026

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                       CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M)
                                       Date of Decision:19.01.2026
Babu Lal


                                                                  ....Petitioner

                                       vs.

State of Haryana and others

                                                                 ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:     Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Praveen Mehta, D.A.G, Haryana

                          ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by

departmental authorities whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Police force on 30.01.2001 as Constable.

An FIR No. 339 dated 15.12.2008 under Sections 354, 342 IPC at Police

Station Rewari City was registered against him and he was arrested. The

Disciplinary Authority invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article

311(2) of the Constitution of India dismissed him from service w.e.f.

15.12.2008 without conducting inquiry. He preferred appeal which came to

be dismissed on ground of limitation vide order dated 10.03.2009 passed by

1 of 6

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -2-

Appellate Authority. This Court directed to decide the appeal on merits

which was again dismissed on 13.12.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

dismissed from service without conducting inquiry as contemplated by Rule

16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (As applicable to State of Haryana) (for

short "PPR") read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He was

dismissed from service on account of his implication in FIR under Sections

354 and 342 of IPC. He faced trial and came to be acquitted by Trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was

guilty of offence of outraging modesty of a lady. It was a serious offence,

thus, he was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry. He has

been acquitted by trial Court because complainant turned hostile. Case of

petitioner does not fall under Rule 16.3 of PPR.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The 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 herein

below:-

2 of 6

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -3-

"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 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"

7. 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

3 of 6

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -4-

obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional."

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

the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.12.2008 has observed as

under:-

" I, Ram Singh Bishnoi, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Rewari am of the considered opinion that it is not reasonably practical to hold inquiry against Constable Babu Lal No. 830/RWR as it shall expose the victim to undue harassment and will further rule out a fair inquiry into the act and conduct of the defaulter. The act and conduct of the 'defaulter' warrants outright dismissal from the service."

9. The reason advanced by disciplinary authority for dispensing

with inquiry is not plausible reason because same reason is advanced in

every second case where there is FIR against serving police officer. The

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

the inquiry. Mere writing one or more lines in the impugned order that it is

not practicable to hold inquiry or assigning vague reason is not compliance

of mandate of either Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of PPR. It would

have been in the interest of both sides and better course, had the respondent

instead of straight away dismissing the petitioner put him under suspension

and thereafter conducted inquiry.

10. It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be

incommensurate to alleged offence. The principle of proportionality should

be followed by all quasi- judicial and judicial authorities while awarding

4 of 6

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -5-

punishment irrespective of nature of offence. As per principle of

proportionality, even punishment prescribed by legislation must be

incommensurate to alleged offence. If punishment is disproportionate to

alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. In Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 4.5.2000 proposed to re-open the quantum

of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on certain officers of the

Delhi Development Authority who were connected with the land of the DDA

allotted to M/s. Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider

imposition of higher degree of punishments in view of role of these officers

in the said matter. The question posed before the court was whether the right

punishment was awarded to the officers in accordance with well-known

principles of law or whether the punishments required any upward revision.

12. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC

442, the Apex Court held that any penalty which is disproportionate to the

gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"15. ... It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ..."

13. In the instant case, by no means or reasons, awarded

punishment can be called proportionate to alleged misconduct. The

petitioner was having seven and a half years' service to his credit at the time

of passing impugned order of dismissal from service. He was implicated on

5 of 6

CWP No. 12237 of 2011(O&M) -6-

the basis of statement of complainant. He faced trial and came to be

acquitted as complainant did not support case of the prosecution. He was

not granted opportunity of hearing by the Department and Trial Court

acquitted him. In these circumstances, punishment of dismissal from service

seems to be harsh and on the higher side. The quantum of punishment needs

to be reconsidered.