JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby they were awarded punishment of dismissal from service.

2. The petitioner No.1 joined Police Force as Constable in 1970 and petitioner No.2 in 1989. In 2005, they were posted at Police Post, Bus Stand, Jhajjar. The Superintendent of Police (SP), Jhajjar vide order dated 15.12.2005 placed them under suspension on the ground that they have misbehaved with Ms. Uma, daughter of Shankar Singh, resident of Almora (UP) under the influence of liquor. In the suspension order it was mentioned that Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Jhajjar will conduct regular inquiry and submit his report. The respondent vide order dated 26.12.2005 invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India dispensed with departmental inquiry and dismissed the petitioners from service. They preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.03.2006 passed by Inspector General of Police (IGP), Rohtak. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies against order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct. The petitioners were 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. There was no reason to dispense with inquiry. They were initially placed under suspension and in the suspension order, it was mentioned that regular inquiry would be conducted by DSP. There was no occasion to dispense with inquiry and respondent mechanically dispensed with inquiry and dismissed them from service.

4. Learned State counsel reiterates the findings of the departmental authorities and vehemently submits that no interference is warranted. The petitioners belong to a disciplined force, thus, their conduct must be above board. They are bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioners were 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:-

“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 reaso