[Article 311] Holding Enquiry Before Dismissal Of Police Officer Can Be Dispensed When 'Not Reasonably Practicable': P&H HC Flags Violation Of Mandatory Provision

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that it is mandatory for holding inquiry before dismissing a police officer in accordance with Article 311 of the constitution.

As per Article 311, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under it, shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. 

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "This Court has found that as soon as an FIR is registered against a police official, the jurisdictional SSP opts to dispense with the inquiry. He does not think it necessary to conduct inquiry which is mandatory."

As per 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, the Court added.

These observations were made in response to the plea filed by a Police Officer, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking setting aside of order whereby he was dismissed from service without holding inquiry as contemplated by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Baljinder Singh, joined Punjab Police as Probationer Sub-Inspector in 2014. Two FIRs bearing , under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were registered against at Punjab's District Taran Tarn.

During the course of investigation it was found that, Singh has accepted illegal gratification from the accused of the aforesaid FIRs.

An FIR under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 59 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was also registered against Singh and later he was dismissed from the service.

The counsel appearing for Singh submitted that there was no occasion to dispense with mandatory inquiry contemplated by Article 311 of Constitution of India read with Rule 16.24 of the 1934 Rules.

On the other hand, the state counsel submitted that petitioner accepted illegal gratification from accused in the FIRs, thus, it was indispensable to dismiss him from service. It was not possible to conduct inquiry, thus, he was dismissed without conducting inquiry.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "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 Punjab Police Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India."

Justice Bansal highlighted that it is not first case where the jurisdictional SSP of State of Punjab has dispensed with inquiry as contemplated by 1934 Rules and Constitution of India.

Perusing Article 311 (2), the judge said, "...in case of conviction, inquiry may be dispensed with. Inquiry may also be dispensed with were it not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. In the case in hand, respondent has concluded that no witness on account of fear of petitioner would come forward, thus, it is not practicable to hold inquiry."

The respondent has miserably failed to consider that foundation of dismissal of petitioner is registration of FIR for accepting illegal gratification, the Court said.

"On account of said allegation, an FIR has been registered under Prevention of Corruption Act. Witnesses of criminal case were bound to be key witnesses of the departmental inquiry," it added.

"If the respondent despite being jurisdictional SSP is unable to secure presence of witnesses and create free and fair atmosphere, it is highly unbelievable that those witnesses would depose before the trial court against the petitioner," said the Court.

Justice Bansal opined that the reason advanced by SSP for dispensing with inquiry is not the actual reason because same reason has been advanced in every case where there is FIR against serving police officer.

The judge said that the  "respondent can dispense with inquiry if actually it is not practicable to hold inquiry. Mere writing one line in the impugned order that it is not practicable to hold inquiry is not compliance of mandate of either Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules."

"The respondent instead of straight away dismissing the petitioner could put him under suspension and thereafter conduct inquiry," the Court said.

It pointed out that the above course was adopted in the case of co-accused, "thus, there was no reason to adopt different course in the case of petitioner."

"It is interesting to note that FIR was registered against the petitioner as well as HC Jatinder Singh and he has been re-instated before awaiting conclusion of criminal proceedings," it added.

In light of the above, the Court opined, "that respondents without any logical reason dispensed with mandatory inquiry."

While setting aside the dismissal order, the Court clarified, "that petitioner, as conceded, shall not be entitled to back wages."

The respondent shall be free either to conduct departmental inquiry after following due procedure prescribed by Punjab Police Rules or take appropriate decision after conclusion of criminal proceedings, the Court added.

Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner

Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab

Title: Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 175

Click here to read/download the order