JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Police force on 30.01.2001 as Constable. An FIR No. 339 dated 15.12.2008 under Sections 354, 342 IPC at Police Station Rewari City was registered against him and he was arrested. The Disciplinary Authority invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India dismissed him from service w.e.f. 15.12.2008 without conducting inquiry. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed on ground of limitation vide order dated 10.03.2009 passed by Appellate Authority. This Court directed to decide the appeal on merits which was again dismissed on 13.12.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was 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. He was dismissed from service on account of his implication in FIR under Sections 354 and 342 of IPC. He faced trial and came to be acquitted by Trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was guilty of offence of outraging modesty of a lady. It was a serious offence, thus, he was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry. He has been acquitted by trial Court because complainant turned hostile. Case of petitioner does not fall under Rule 16.3 of PPR.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The 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 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 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”

7. 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 s