Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed the dismissal of a Punjab Police assistant sub-inspector (ASI) over an alleged extortion racket, holding that a mere apprehension of influencing the complainant or witnesses does not justify skipping a regular departmental inquiry.Allowing a petition by Kashmiri Lal, Justice Namit Kumar set aside the June 12, 2021, dismissal order and an Aug 26, 2022, appellate order, directing the state govt to reinstate the officer with all consequential benefits.“Mere apprehension that a delinquent employee may influence the complainant or witnesses cannot constitute sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules,” the court held. “Mere registration of an FIR cannot constitute a sufficient ground for invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The exceptional power under the said provision cannot be exercised merely because the allegations against the delinquent employee are grave or because the disciplinary authority considers him unfit to continue in service,” it added.Lal, who joined Punjab Police in 1994 and was promoted to ASI (local rank) in 2020, was arrested on May 28, 2021, in connection with an extortion case registered at Sadar police station in Jalandhar. It was alleged Lal and other police personnel colluded with a gang using women to honeytrap influential people over phones, threatening them with false cases to extort money.While Lal was in judicial custody, the Jalandhar commissioner of police dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) and Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules without initiating an inquiry. Lal secured bail on July 9, 2021.Senior counsel R K Arora, representing Lal, argued that the officer had 27 years of clean service record with commendation certificates and said that separate reasons recorded for bypassing the inquiry were never communicated to his client. The counsel further submitted that mere registration of an FIR cannot be treated as conclusive proof unless the employee is convicted by a criminal court.The state argued that Lal’s conduct rendered him unfit for police service and defended bypassing the inquiry due to fears he would intimidate witnesses.The HC held that the reasons recorded by the competent authority did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for dispensing with an inquiry.“The disciplinary authority was required to disclose the specific factual circumstances which rendered it reasonably impracticable to hold the departmental enquiry,” the court observed, adding that it was necessary to demonstrate why the complainant or witnesses could not be adequately protected or examined.Referring to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the court observed that dismissal could be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service.It added that neither the dismissal nor appellate orders considered Lal’s length of service or pension claims under Rule 16.2.The court clarified that reinstatement remains subject to the state’s right to initiate a departmental inquiry under Punjab Police Rules or take fresh action following the outcome of the criminal trial.
