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

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate and Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

****

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 dated 17.12.2015 and 02.03.2016.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 02.12.1988. He was promoted as Head Constable in 2005 and EASI in 2011. He was implicated in FIR No.295 dated 13.12.2015 registered under Section 13A/3 of Gambling Act, 1867 and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 alleging that he was consuming liquor at the spot. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.12.2015 invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution of India. He preferred an appeal before appellate authority which dismissed the same vide order dated 02.03.2016.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was dismissed from service on account of aforesaid FIR, however, no police report was filed against him under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The respondent without any reason dispensed with inquiry contemplated by Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’) read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. It is settled proposition of law that departmental inquiry cannot be dispensed with mechanically. The Appellate Authority did not appreciate submissions of the petitioner and passed impugned orders.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that it is factually correct that police report was not filed against petitioner in aforesaid FIR, however, he was dismissed without holding inquiry because he was involved in other cases. The authorities were bound to dispense with inquiry.

5. On being asked, learned State counsel confirmed that petitioner was never subjected to major penalty.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. The petitioner was dismissed without conducting inquiry. From the perusal of record, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that he 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 wri