Firing Incident Without Inquiry: P&H High Court Converts Dismissal of Punjab Constable into Compulsory Retirement
Case Name: Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: CWP-19320-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that dispensing with a departmental inquiry under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution without recording cogent and plausible reasons renders the dismissal order unsustainable. The Court further held that in the absence of a finding of “gravest misconduct” or incorrigibility under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and where the employee was released on probation, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The dismissal was accordingly modified to compulsory retirement with consequential retiral benefits.
Summary: The petitioner joined the Punjab Police Force as a Constable on 02.08.1989. On 15.10.2015, while posted as Guard at the residence of the President of Shiv Sena Punjab, he fired four rounds from his service rifle around midnight. An FIR No.130 under Sections 336, 166 and 166-A IPC was registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot.
Without conducting a departmental inquiry as contemplated under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed, and while doing so, the Appellate Authority relied upon his past service record, noting that he had been absent from duty on 45 occasions. Subsequently, he was convicted by the trial Court on 17.07.2023 but was released on probation.
The High Court examined the scope of Article 311(2) and the circumstances under which an inquiry can be dispensed with. Referring to Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Court reiterated that the disciplinary authority must record reasons in writing demonstrating that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. In the present case, the reason recorded was that the petitioner was “influential” and could influence witnesses. The Court held that such a vague and stereotyped reason, often advanced in similar cases, does not satisfy the constitutional mandate. Mere reproduction of a line stating impracticability is not compliance with Article 311(2) or Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules.
The Court further analysed Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which permits dismissal only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as a cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for service. Relying upon State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, the Court held that while a single act may amount to gravest misconduct, the disciplinary authority must record a finding to that effect. In the present case, there was no declaration that the petitioner’s act constituted “gravest misconduct” nor any finding that he was incorrigible.
The Court also noted that under Rule 16.24(1)(vii), if past adverse service record is to be relied upon, the delinquent must be confronted with such material. In the present case, the Appellate Authority relied upon the petitioner’s past record without complying with this requirement.
On the question of proportionality, the Court referred to Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reiterating that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and any disproportionate penalty would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner had rendered 26 years of service, was not subjected to departmental inquiry, was released on probation in the criminal case, and was not involved in any other criminal case. In these circumstances, dismissal was held to be disproportionate.
Though ordinarily the matter would have been remanded for reconsideration of punishment, the Court declined to do so considering that more than a decade had passed since the alleged incident and to avoid prolonging litigation.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The punishment of dismissal from service was modified to compulsory retirement with effect from 16.10.2015. The petitioner was held entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and pension with effect from 01.02.2026, but not to back wages or pension for the intervening period. The retiral dues were directed to be released within three months, failing which interest at 9% per annum would be payable.