207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

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 Punjab Police Force on 02.08.1989 as Constable. On 15.10.2015 he was posted as Guard at the residence of Yog Raj Sharma, President, Shiv Sena Punjab. He fired four rounds from his rifle at about 12:00 AM. The respondent registered FIR No.130 under Sections 336, 166 and 166-A of IPC at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot against him. He was not subjected to departmental inquiry. The respondent dismissed him from service invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before appellate authority. It is apt to mention here that Appellate Authority while dismissing his appeal considered his past service record. As per his past record, he was found absent from duty on 45 occasions. He was convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated

17.07.2023, however, released on probation.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that respondent did not consider petitioner’s length of service as well as entitlement to pension while passing impugned order. It was a case of violation of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, ‘PPR’). The respondent invoked Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and dispensed with inquiry. There was no occasion to dispense with inquiry.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel reiterates findings of the departmental authorities and submits that no interference is warranted. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be above board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

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 sati