Dismissal from service without conducting a departmental inquiry is unconstitutional, necessitating written reasons for dispensing with such inquiry as mandated by Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated19.10.2020 (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 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 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 w