The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of an Assistant Sub-Inspector who was removed from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution based solely on the registration of an FIR and an unsubstantiated apprehension that he might influence witnesses. The Court held that the exceptional power under Article 311(2)(b) cannot be invoked mechanically and requires the disciplinary authority to record concrete, objective reasons demonstrating why a departmental inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The judgment reinforces that mere gravity of allegations or subjective satisfaction of the authority is insufficient to bypass the constitutional mandate of a fair inquiry.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kashmiri Lal, served in the Punjab Police for approximately 27 years. He joined as a Constable on 25.04.1994, was promoted to Head Constable on 15.10.2010, and thereafter as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Local Rank) on 26.02.2020. He had earned Commendation Certificates for excellent performance of official duties. In May 2021, he was implicated in a criminal case alleging extortion and corruption, leading to his summary dismissal without a departmental inquiry.
Key Facts
- 28.05.2021: FIR No. 81 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar under Sections 384, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 7(a) & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested the same day.
- 09.07.2021: The petitioner was released on bail.
- 12.06.2021: While the petitioner was in judicial custody, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar (Respondent No. 4), passed an order dismissing him from service invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules. The order stated that a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 was "not practicably possible" and that "reasons have been recorded separately."
- 27.07.2021: The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police, Law & Order, Punjab (Respondent No. 3).
- 26.08.2022: The appellate authority rejected the appeal, merely reproducing the allegations and observing that "no valid ground" existed, without independently examining whether the conditions for invoking Article 311(2)(b) were satisfied.
- The petitioner had rendered approximately 27 years of service with a clean record and Commendation Certificates.
- A separate detailed order dated 12.06.2021 (Annexure R-1/T) was later placed on record by the respondents, citing apprehension that the petitioner might influence the complainant and witnesses during a departmental inquiry.
Procedural History
- 28.05.2021: FIR registered; petitioner arrested
- 09.07.2021: Petitioner released on bail
- 12.06.2021: Dismissal order passed by Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar (Annexure P-2)
- 27.07.2021: Appeal filed before ADGP Law & Order, Punjab (Annexure P-3)
- 26.08.2022: Appeal rejected by ADGP Law & Order (Annexure P-4)
- 2022: Writ petition (CWP-24029-2022) filed before the High Court under Articles 226/227
- 01.10.2026: Judgment reserved
- 02.11.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Learned senior counsel submitted that the dismissal order did not contain any cogent or legally sustainable reason for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. The reasons purportedly recorded separately were never communicated to the petitioner, depriving him of an opportunity to challenge them. Dismissal, being a major penalty, ordinarily requires a regular departmental inquiry. Recourse to Article 311(2)(b) is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the authority records a constitutionally sufficient satisfaction that holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The punishment was also contrary to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, which mandates consideration of length of service and pension claims. Mere registration of an FIR is not conclusive proof of guilt.
For the Respondents: Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated he was incorrigible and unfit for the police department. A separate detailed order dated 12.06.2021 (Annexure R-1/T) recorded reasons for dispensing with the inquiry, citing the petitioner's contact with co-accused and apprehension that he would influence the complainant and witnesses. The disciplinary authority was satisfied that a regular departmental inquiry was not practicable under Rule 16.24.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order dated 12.06.2021 and the appellate order dated 26.08.2022, reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, and a direction for a fair departmental inquiry if the department wished to proceed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the disciplinary authority's satisfaction that a departmental inquiry was "not reasonably practicable" under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, based solely on an apprehension that the delinquent employee might influence witnesses without disclosure of concrete circumstances, satisfies the constitutional mandate. A related issue was whether the appellate authority's failure to independently examine the validity of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry renders the appellate order unsustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the impugned order of dismissal does not contain any cogent or legally sustainable reason for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. Although the order records that reasons have been recorded separately, no such reasons were ever communicated to the petitioner either by the punishing authority or by the appellate authority. Learned senior counsel relied on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, and Gursher Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab, 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 26471, to argue that the power under Article 311(2)(b) is exceptional and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or merely to avoid a departmental inquiry. The condition precedent is the existence of circumstances rendering the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable, and the recording in writing of reasons for such satisfaction. The mere seriousness of allegations or the possibility that the employee may not cooperate cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement. The petitioner further submitted that the punishment of dismissal was contrary to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, which requires due regard to length of service and pension claims, neither of which were considered.
For the Respondents
The respondents contended that the petitioner's conduct - forming a gang with fellow employees and private persons, misusing official position to extort money from influential persons - demonstrated he was incorrigible and unfit for the police department. They placed reliance on a separate detailed order dated 12.06.2021 (Annexure R-1/T) which recorded that the petitioner was in contact with other accused since long before the FIR, and that his associates were threatening the complainant. It was argued that if a departmental inquiry were initiated, the petitioner would bring the complainant and witnesses under his influence, preventing them from giving evidence freely. The disciplinary authority had therefore reached the conclusion that a regular departmental inquiry was not practicable under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the constitutional scheme of Article 311 and the second proviso thereto, particularly clause (b). It reiterated the settled legal position enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Tulsiram Patel and subsequently reaffirmed in a catena of judgments, including Gursher Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab.
"It is trite law that the decision of the appointing authority on the issue of 'recording reasons in writing on its satisfaction as to why holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable' may be subject to judicial review under Article 226 by the High Court. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel's case has reiterated the legal position and authoritatively explained the scope and ambit of Article 311(2) and the second proviso thereto. The Court has made it clear that the power under Article 311(2)(b) is an exceptional power and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or merely for the purpose of avoiding a departmental inquiry. The condition precedent for invoking Clause (b) is the existence of circumstances which render the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable and the recording, in writing, of reasons for the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority."
The Court emphasized that the phrase "not reasonably practicable" is distinct from "impracticable" and requires an objective assessment by a reasonable person of the prevailing situation. It cited illustrative instances from Tulsiram Patel where an inquiry would not be reasonably practicable: where the government servant terrorizes, threatens, or intimidates witnesses; where the servant threatens the disciplinary authority; or where an atmosphere of violence or general indiscipline prevails.
On a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.06.2021, the Court found that the punishing authority had merely observed that it was satisfied that a regular departmental inquiry was "not practicably possible" and that "reasons have been recorded separately." The order itself did not disclose the circumstances rendering the inquiry impracticable. Even the separate order (Annexure R-1/T) placed on record by the respondents assigned as the main reason the petitioner's alleged contact with co-accused and the apprehension that he might influence the complainant or witnesses. The Court held:
"Mere apprehension that a delinquent employee may influence the complainant or witnesses cannot constitute sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. The disciplinary authority was required to disclose the specific factual circumstances which rendered it reasonably impracticable to hold the departmental enquiry. It was necessary for the authority to demonstrate, on the basis of the material available on record, as to why the complainant or witnesses could not be adequately protected or examined in accordance with the prescribed procedure so as to ensure a fair departmental enquiry."
The Court further held that the nature and gravity of the allegations, including the alleged formation of a gang, association with criminal elements, or adverse impact on the police department's image, may justify initiating disciplinary proceedings and may be relevant in determining the appropriate punishment if the charges are ultimately established. However, mere registration of an FIR cannot constitute a sufficient ground for invoking Article 311(2)(b).
The Court also found that the appellate authority, while passing the order dated 26.08.2022, failed to examine whether the essential conditions for invoking Article 311(2)(b) were satisfied. It merely reproduced the allegations and rejected the appeal by observing that "no valid ground had been made out," without independently considering the reasons recorded by the punishing authority or examining whether the circumstances actually rendered the inquiry reasonably impracticable.
Additionally, the Court found merit in the submission that the punishment of dismissal was not in consonance with Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Rule 16.2(1) mandates that dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, and that due regard shall be had to the length of service and the claim to pension. The petitioner had admittedly rendered approximately 27 years of service and earned Commendation Certificates. Neither the dismissal order nor the appellate order reflected any consideration of these factors.
The Court also took note of the guidelines/instructions dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab, in compliance with this Court's directions in Ex. Constable Vikas No. 950/FZR v. State of Punjab, CWP-13285-2022, which cautioned that orders under Article 311(2)(b) should not be passed mechanically and that reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be supported by material on record, not vague or mere reproduction of constitutional language.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated 12.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the appellate order dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-4). The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, the Court made it clear that the petitioner, as conceded, shall not be entitled to back wages. The setting aside of the impugned orders and the direction for reinstatement were without prejudice to the right of the respondents to take recourse in accordance with law - the respondents shall be free either to conduct a departmental inquiry after following due procedure prescribed by the Punjab Police Rules or take an appropriate decision after the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Constitutional Safeguards Cannot Be Bypassed by Ipse Dixit
The judgment reinforces that the exceptional power under Article 311(2)(b) is not a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiries. The disciplinary authority must record specific, concrete, and objective reasons demonstrating why a fair inquiry is not reasonably practicable. A bare assertion of satisfaction, mechanical reproduction of constitutional language, or vague apprehensions will not withstand judicial scrutiny. Practitioners should insist on production of the separate reasons recorded by the authority and examine whether they disclose factual circumstances - such as actual threats, intimidation, or coercion of witnesses - rather than mere speculation.
Appellate Authorities Must Independently Apply Their Mind
The appellate authority cannot merely affirm the dismissal order by reproducing allegations. It has a duty to independently examine whether the conditions for invoking Article 311(2)(b) are satisfied: (i) existence of circumstances rendering inquiry not reasonably practicable, and (ii) recording of reasons in writing for such satisfaction. Failure to do so renders the appellate order unsustainable. In appeals under the Punjab Police Rules, counsel should specifically challenge the appellate order's failure to engage with the constitutional mandate.
Length of Service and Pension Claims Are Mandatory Considerations
Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules imposes a mandatory obligation to consider the length of service and pension claims before awarding dismissal. An order of dismissal that does not reflect consideration of these factors - especially where the employee has a long, clean service record with commendations - is vulnerable to challenge. This principle applies with equal force to other service rules containing similar provisions.
Mere Registration of FIR Is Not a Ground for Summary Dismissal
The Court categorically held that mere registration of an FIR against a government employee cannot constitute a sufficient ground for invoking Article 311(2)(b). The gravity of allegations or the pendency of criminal proceedings does not, by itself, render a departmental inquiry impracticable. The department remains free to conduct a departmental inquiry (with appropriate witness protection measures) or await the conclusion of criminal proceedings. This principle protects employees from arbitrary dismissal based solely on unproven allegations.
Witness Protection Measures Must Be Explored Before Dispensing with Inquiry
Where the authority apprehends witness influence, it must demonstrate on record why the complainant and witnesses cannot be adequately protected or examined through prescribed procedures. The availability of witness protection mechanisms, in-camera proceedings, or other safeguards must be considered before concluding that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The burden is on the authority to show that such measures are insufficient in the specific factual context.
