The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to dismiss a government employee without an inquiry is an exception and must be based on valid reasons, not arbitrary or ulterior motives. The judgment emphasized the importance of objective assessment and the need for cogent material to support the decision to dispense with an inquiry.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order of dismissal dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.5 dispensing with departmental inquiry under Articles 311(2) (b) of Constitution of India and also order dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined Police department as Constable on 01.02.1989 and was promoted as Head Constable on 15.07.1993 on qualifying Lower School Course. Thereafter, he qualified the Intermediate School Course and was promoted as ASI on 13.09.2012. After his promotion as ASI, he was transferred from Tarn Taran to Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. However, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.05.2014 by attracting provisions of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India by dispensing with the departmental inquiry. As per grounds mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner was alleged to be indulging in criminal activities by misusing his official status. He was also found to be involved in heinous crime under the NDPS Act and receiving illegal gratification for extending favour to the smugglers. The impugned order of termination has been challenged in the present writ petition by raising various grounds.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishing authority has not applied its mind as without recording any reason, the departmental inquiry has been dispensed with under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Even the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal without mentioning any reason. Learned counsel further submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory and no adverse remarks were ever conveyed to him. By considering his past record, the petitioner was promoted also. Learned counsel also submits that nothing has been mentioned as to how the petitioner was presumed to be involved in commission of serious offence or having links with criminals. There is no cogent material with the punishing authority to show that the petitioner has been indulging in any criminal activity earlier or at any point of time, no notice was taken with regard to his involvement. The impugned order was passed so hurriedly that the report, which was sought from Superintendent of Police (D), Tarn Taran by Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar on the same day relying on which, the impugned order of dismissal was also passed on the same day. Learned counsel also submits that it has been mentioned in the impugned order that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner as it is very difficult to find out the involvement of the petitioner with well known criminals. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 1991 (1) SCT 125, Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 2005 (11) SCC 525 as well as judgments of this Court in Ramesh Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 (4) SCT 830, Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 (2) SCT 133, State of Punjab and others vs. Dalbir Singh, 2013 (1) SCT 140, Lalji Dass vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996 (1) SCT 821, Smt. Surinder Kaur wd/o Sh. Labh Singh vs. State of Punjab through Director General of Police, Chandigarh, 2008 (1) SCT 396, Swaran Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996 (3) SCT 113, Gurmit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (1) SCT 41, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (4) SCT 543, Narinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 (4) SCT 222, Virender Singh