The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to record reasons for dispensing with the requirements of holding an inquiry, as required by Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. This order shall dispose of CWP-28382-2018, CWP-19929-2019, CWP-4578-2021 and CWP-2213-2022. The Disciplinary Authority (Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural, Amritsar) has dispensed with the service of the four petitioners who have filed separate writ petitions by common order. In substance, the allegations are that FIR No.58, dated 17.09.2017, has been registered on the statement of Gagandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh against the petitioners under Section 389, 342, 506, 34 IPC and 7 of P.C. Act, 1988. It is alleged that the petitioners entered his shop while claiming that they have come from Narcotic Cell, Border Range, Amritsar Rural and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- failing which he will be involved in a false case under the NDPS Act. Sh. Gagandeep Singh is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- immediately and, thereafter, paid a sum of Rs.16,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,600/-. The operative part of the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, is extracted as under:-

'On the basis of cases registered against the above employees and their service record was perused. ASI[CR] Lakhwinder Singh No.805/ASR-R, PHG Hardip Singh 284/ASR-R, ASI[R] Harjit Singh 1336/ASR-R, are not fit to be retained in the service of police department. I am also satisfied with the fact that it will not be desirable to retain them in police department in view of the provisions of Article 311[2][b] of the Constitution of India along with Punjab Police Rules 16.1"

3. A detailed written statement has been filed by the State of Punjab. On 11.02.2022, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel representing the petitioners, the following order was passed:-

'The hearing of the case is being held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

Heard learned counsel representing the parties at some length. The attention of the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab has been drawn to the fact that the appointing authority has not recorded his satisfaction to the effect that it is not reasonably practicable to hold regular inquiry into the charges against the petitioner in the impugned order.

Let the original file in which the order in question was passed be produced in the Court for perusal on the next date of hearing.

List on 14.02.2022.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the other connected cases."

4. The original record has been produced. The learned counsel representing the State of Punjab admits that there is no additional reason recorded on the file.

Article 311 of the Constitution of India is extracted as under:-

'311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed

(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 rec