Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh vs The Punjab State And Anr on 18 February, 2026
1
RSA-2525 of 1994
19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2525 of 1994
Kulwinder Singh
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 19.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 18. 02.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18. 02.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by:: - Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate, and
Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.05.1994,, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992, passed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Jalandhar, whereby suit of the appellant-plaintiff appellant for declaration was decreed, has been set aside.
2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that pplaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff joined the Police 1 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:13 ::: 2 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 Department as a Constable on 20.05.1985 at Jalandhar and after successfully completing the requisite training training, he duly discharged his official duties. In April, 1987, 1987 he was posted as a gunman to Sh.
Roshan Singh Makkar and become involved in FIR No.69 da dated 18.04.1987,, registered under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 & 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, Act at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. However, the plaintiff was acquit acquitted in the said case by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated 04.05.1989.
04.05.198 Plaintiff pleaded that on the same allegations, he was also detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, for a period of one year vide order dated 13.11.198 13.11.1987, passed by the District Magistrate, Jalandhar.
Jalandhar The he said detention order was subsequently revoked by the State Government Government, vide order dated 29.04.1988, 8, however, another detention order under the National Security Act, Act 1980 was simultaneously passed against the plaintiff on the same date. Vide ide order dated 14.11.1987, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, plaintiff was dismissed from service under Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules read with Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the suit for declaration.
3. Upon issuance of notice, the defendants contested the suit.
In the written statement, statement it was pleaded that the plaintiff was removed from service on account of his alleged close connections with extremists and anti-social anti social elements. It was further pleaded that that, when the plaintiff was posted as a gunman with Roshan Singh Makkar Makkar, he 2 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 3 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 developed friendship with another constable Raghbir Singh. On 18.04.1987, the plaintiff along with the said Raghbir Singh Singh, conspired to loot affluent persons while armed with weapons. On the same date, at about 8.30 p.m. the plaintiff and Raghbir Singh carrying the sten gun issued to the plaintiff went to the shop of Darshan Kumar Chopra situated in New Jawahar Nagar and attempted to rob him. When Darshan Kumar Chopra resisted and grappled with the plaintiff plaintiff, Constable Raghbir Singh fired from the sten gun of the plaintiff plaintiff, and as a result of which Darshan Kumar Chopra ssustained bleeding injuries.
The turban of the plaintiff and one magazine fell at the spot and thereafter both the accused persons fled from the place of occur occurrence.
Consequently, aforesaid FIR No.69 dated 18.04.1987 was registered against the plaintiff and his co-accused co accused Ragh Raghbir Singh. It was further pleaded that plaintiff was acquitted in the aforesaid FIR on technical grounds. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had close connections with absconding abscond extremists,, in respect of which secret reports dated 16.07.1987 and 02.11.1987 were received. Therefore, the plaintiff was detained under the provisions of National Security Act Act, 1980, vide order dated 13.11.1987, 13.11.1987 passed ssed by the District Magistrate Magistrate, Jalandhar.
The said detention order was revoked by the State Government on technical grounds;
grounds however, a fresh detention order was subsequently passed which was confirmed. It was pleaded that since the plaintiff had close connections with the anti-social anti social elements and anti anti-national elements, ments, therefore, it was not feasible to serve a notice upon him or to hold a departmental enquiry against him under Rule 16.24 of the 3 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 4 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 Punjab Police Rules.
Rules Keeping in view the public interest and the interest of administration, it was considered inappropr inappropriate to retain the plaintiff in service, and accordingly,, he was dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b) 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, vide order dated 14.11.1987.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: -
"1. Whether the order dated 14.11.1987 is illegal and void and the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and consequential relief? OPP.
2. Relief.
5. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the the trial Court Court, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the order dated 14.11.1987 was as illegal, unconstitutional, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff plaintiff. The plaintiff was consequently held entitled to all rights, privileges and emoluments attached to his post.
post Aggrieved by, the defendant defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.1994 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24.12.1992 were set aside.
aside. Hence, th the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court are erroneous, as it has erred in law in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the well-reasoned well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court Court.
4 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 5 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 He contended that the order passed by the respondents dispensing with the departmental artmental enquiry enquiry is wholly laconic and does not germane to the requirements of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India requirements India, as the satisfaction recorded in the order of dismissal was not supported by any independent material so as to justify the dispen dispensing with the departmental enquiry. He contended that order of dismissal was wholly arbitrary and was an attempt to deprive the appellant of his rights conferred by Article 311(2), 311(2), namely, the right to have a fair hearing before imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service, which is an extreme act against an employee. He further contended that the action of the authorities was in violation of provisions of Rule Rules 16.1 and 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules,, 1934 1934. He contended that judgment and an decree passed by the first appellate Court being perverse are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel in support of his contentions relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1991 1991(1) SCC 362; Risal Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 201 2014(13) SCC 244; judgment of Division bench of this Court in Darshan Jit Singh Dhindsa v. State of Punjab and others, (1993) 1 SLR 209 and judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Police and an another v. Jagmal Singh, 2024 NCDHC 2259;
2259; Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others v. Dushyant Kumar 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1136 and Commissioner of Police and others v. Shri Karam Pal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4906 4906.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel contended that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is perfectly 5 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 6 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 legal and valid. It was submitted that the appellant was associated with extremists and their unlawful activities in State of Punjab and holding of a departmental enquiry against the appellant was not reasonably practicable.. Therefore, herefore, the punishing authority was justified in invoking the provisions provision of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 1934. He contended that judgment and decree of the first appellate Court do not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, llearned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohinder Singh, 1997(2) S.C.T. 39 and judgments of this Court in Yunish Masih v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) S.C.T. 81;
81 RSA-862 862 of 1997 - Harvinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and others decided on 21.03.2024 and RSA-2491 of 1994 - The State of Punjab v. Constable Jaswinder Singh Singh, decided on 30.05.2024..
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the appellant was a Constable in the Punjab Police and while he was posted as a gunman to Roshan Singh Makkar, a criminal case, case being FIR No.69 dated 18.04.1987 18.04.1987, was registered against the appellant under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 & 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. The Appellant was also detained under the National Security 6 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 7 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 Act, 1980 for a period of one year, year vide order dated 13.11.1987, passed by the District Magistrate, Jalandhar. However, the said detention order was revoked by the State Government Government, vide order dated 29.04.1988, 8, and another order under the provisions of the National Security Act, Act 1980 was passed against the appellant on the same date.
Vide ide order dated 14.11.1987, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, the plaintiff was dismissed from service under Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules read with Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India as he was associated with anti anti-social and anti-
national elements in their unlawful activities in the State of Punjab Punjab.
The appellant was involved in very serious crime during the time when the State of Punjab Punjab was affected by terrorism. The State received two secret reports dated 16.07.1987 and 06.02.1987/ 06.02.1987/02.11.1987 to the effect that appellant had close connections with the extremists in the State of Punjab. The said reports are reproduced hereunder: -
"P.S. DIVISION NO. 6DISTRICT JALANDHAR SOURCE REPORT SECRET Sir, It is submitted that I have received special information through trusted sources that on 01.11.1987 at Lyallpur Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar Sukhdev @ Sukha @ General Labh Singh who is a former Constable and a absconding terrorist held a secret meeting at 2pm wherein 10 Sikh youth were present. Jaspal@Dhana former Constable and Constable Raghuvir Singh No.2111 and Kulwinder Singh No.2066 took part in the said me meeting. In the
7 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 8 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 said meeting, Sukhdev @ Sukha stated that the list of Police Officers involved in fake encounters shall be prepared so that they could be eliminated. The information regarding movements of certain High Rank Police officers including timings off them visiting the city shall be obtained to eliminate them and the Sikh Youth involved in Terror activities against the Government shall be provided with financial support. The local pubic shall be convinced to provide with every possible support to the Sikh Youth involved in terrorist activities when required. The Anti-Sikh Sikh people can be successfully extracted from Punjab which is possible by terrorising them with fear of homicide. Be prepared and make efforts for the success of our common mission. The participants articipants expressed agreement with Sukhdev Alias Sukha and assured full support.
Presented for information and appropriate action.
Harmail Singh Division No.6 Jalandhar City 06-02-1987"
"P.S. DIVISION NO. 6DISTRICT JALANDHAR SOURCE REPORT SECRET Sir, It is submitted that I have received special information through trusted sources that on 15.07.1987, at Guru Gobind Singh Stadium, New Jawahar Nagar, where Jaspal Singh, former Police Constable, who is an absconding terrorist, held a secret meeting att about four o'clock in the evening, in which among police employees Constable Avtar Singh No. 2111 and Kulwinder Singh No. 2066 took part.
These constables gave Jaspal Singh @ Dhanna many important pieces of information about the police department and alsoo told about the movements of certain High Rank Police officers including timings of them visiting the city. In this
8 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 9 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 meeting they decided that these Constable Avtar Singh No. 2111 and Kulwinder Singh No. 2066, along with Jaspal Singh, Ex-Head Constable, andd other absconding terrorists, will provide all kinds of assistance in every way.
They will, by mixing and associating with every police employee, make efforts to persuade them to help the Singhs who are struggling for the Sikh community, and to give them shelter and financial assistance. They will give financial help to Sikh youths who are absconders, and by conducting reconnaissance about their coming and going, will keep giving them timely information, so that they do not fall into the police net and remain ain saved from arrest.
In this manner these two constables, by establishing association with a terrorist operative, have shown interest in terrorist activities, and dangerous consequences could have resulted from their inclinations. Therefore, continuous surveillance urveillance of these constables is necessary and appropriate action should be taken. In this meeting, eight Sikh youths took part.
Presented for information and appropriate action.
Harmail Singh Division No.6 Jalandhar City 16-07-1987"
10. Perusal of the above-referred referred secret reports shows that there was sufficient material with the Department to form a bonafide satisfaction that the respondent was actively involved in unlawful activities and had established links with extremists operating in the State of Punjab.
Punjab The nature ature of allegations and the prevailing law and order situation at the relevant time demonstrate that holding a regular departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable. The State of Punjab was then passing through an extraordinary phase marked by
9 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 10 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 heightened tened terrorist activities, and in such circumstances, neither the witnesses nor any other person associated with the enquiry could be expected to depose freely or without fear. The possibility of intimidation, coercion, or threat to life could not be rule ruled out. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the sensitive security considerations involved, the competent authority was justified in forming the opinion that continuation of the respondent in service would be prejudicial to the public interest and detrimental to the discipline of the force. Once such satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of relevant material, the authority was legally empowered to dispense with the requirement of holding a departmental enquiry enquiry.
Therefore, on the basis of the material material placed on record, the order of dismissal, by dispensing with the departmental enquiry enquiry, cannot be faulted with and is held to be lawful, justified, and in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in Yunish Masih's case (supra) while considering the similar issue has held that the condition precedent for the application of Clause(b) of Article 311(2) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Such satisfaction is a matter of assessment to be made by the said authority authority, which is the best Judge of the situation. In the said judgment it has been held as under: -
"18.
18. It was on the basis of the aforesaid statement made during interrogationn of Jaspal Singh alias Kulwant Singh in case FIR No. 159/92, dated 28.12.1992, that the competent authority, namely, Senior Superintendent of 10 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 11 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 Police, Amritsar, has formed an opinion that holding of departmental inquiry against the petitioner appellant would ld not be reasonably practicable and has accordingly invoked the provision of Article 311(2)(b). The requirement of the aforesaid provision have been stated in paragraphs 130, 133 and 135 of the 55- Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Honble the Supreme Co Court rendered in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra). It has been held that the condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311.. The Constitution Bench further held that it was not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The decision to conclude that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry iry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is available on the spot and knows what is happening. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best Judge of the situation which has resulted in insertion of cla clause (3) under Article 311 making the decision of the disciplinary authority on this question final. The finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the Court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned.
oncerned. The Constitution Bench also observed that it is not necessary first to constitute the inquiry and only after the witnesses are attacked or Enquiry Officer is subjected to violence that the Government should form an opinion that it was not reasonably bly practicable to hold an inquiry. In para 132, the following pertinent observation has been made:
"132. It is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably 11 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 12 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated against a Government servant. Such a situation can also come into existence subsequently during the course of an inquiry, for instance, after the service of a charge charge-sheet upon the Government nment servant or after he has filed his written statement thereto or even after evidence has been led in part. In such a case also the disciplinary authority would be entitled to apply clause (b) of the second proviso because the word "inquiry" in that clause use includes part of an inquiry. It would also not be reasonably practicable to afford to the Government servant an opportunity of hearing or further hearing, as the case may be, when at the commencement of the inquiry or pending it the Government servant absconds and cannot be served or will not participate in the inquiry. In such cases, the matter must proceed ex parteand on the materials before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even where a part of an inquiry has been held and the rest is dispensed with under clause (b) or a provision in the service rules analogous thereto, the exclusionary words of the second proviso operate in their full vigour and the Government servant cannot complain that he has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank in violation lation of the safeguards provided by Article 311(2)."
19. The second condition necessary for valid application of clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably easonably practicable to hold the inquiry as contemplated by Article 311(2). In the 12 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 13 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 absence of recording of reason in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty would both be void and un-constitutional.
constitutional. However, it has been clarified rified in para 135 that such reasons are not required to be necessarily communicated and it would be suffice if the same are recorded in the file.
20. When we apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes patent that the order dated 17.6.1993 (P-28)
28) would satisfy both these requirements. During the course of arguments we asked the learned Additional Advocate General as to how the statement made by Jaspal Singh alias Kulwant Singh would have any relevance to the investigation of case FIR No.159/92, dated 28.12.1992. A satisfactory answer has been given by Mr. Sehgal revealing that Jaspal Singh alias Kulwant Singh was absconding and was not available for interrogation in the aforesaid case registered against him. In order to satisfy fy the authorities about his absence, he had revealed the mysterious activities of the petitioner petitioner-
appellant. A perusal of the Zimni No. 14, dated 13.6.1993, would make it patent that the appellant had close connection with various terrorist organizations aas he used to pass on information to them with regard to movement of the police. The hard/nonhardcore terrorist like Jaspal Singh alias Kulwant Singh was the beneficiary and he also disclosed that there were other terrorist organisations who were beneficiaryy of the disclosure of information by the petitioner-appellant.
appellant. It was, therefore, rightly concluded by the authorities that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in accordance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution because of the links of the appellant- petitioner with the terrorist organisations.
13 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 14 RSA-2525 of 1994 19
21. It is also pertinent to notice that their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in two judgments have noticed the situation which was obtaining in the State of Punjab during the period 1990-1991.
91. In Mohinder Singhs case (supra) inquiry was dispensed with on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Intelligence. In para 6 it has been held that there were sufficient grounds for dispensation of regular departmental inquiry and the terrorists rrorists were not likely to depose against the petitioner in that case particularly when the terrorism was at its peak in Punjab at that time i.e. 1991. It is further pertinent to mention that the judgment rendered in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) would al also apply to the facts of the case in hand. There the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, had dispensed with holding of inquiry by invoking Article 311(2)(b) (2)(b) by citing the reason that the witness would not come forward to depose against that officerr in a regular departmental inquiry. In that case the order dispensing with the inquiry was based on a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police revealing gross misuse of power and extortion of money by illegally detaining and torturing innocent per persons by that delinquent officer. He was regarded as a terror in the area while discharging his duty as Sub Sub-Inspector of Police. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is discernible from para 6 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"6. Clause (3) of Article 311, it may be noticed, declares that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2), the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such person shall be final on that question. The Tribunal has not referred to clause (3) at all in its order. We are not 14 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 15 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 suggesting that because of clause (3), the Court or the Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor are we suggesting that in every case the Court should blindly accept the recital in terms oof the said proviso contained in the order of dismissal. Be that as it may, without going into the question of extent and scope of judicial review in such a matter, we may look to the facts of this case. The Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, has repor reported that the respondent "is a terror in the area" and, more important, in his very presence, the respondent "intimidated the complainant Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly terrified of this Sub-Inspector".
Inspector". It is also reported that the other persons ns who were arrested with Ranjit Singh, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991, in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent."
22. Therefore, the issue in the present case in a way is similar to the one which has been decided by Honble the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singhs case (supra). In the case in hand it was the Zimni recorded by SI Gurbachan Singh of Police Station B Division, Amritsar in case FIR No. 159/92, dated 28.12.1992, which has been made the basis for formation of an opinion as already observed in the preceding paras.
23. However, the facts of Kuldip Singh's case (supra) are akin to the facts of the present case. Kuldip Singh was a 15 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 16 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 Head Constable of Police and he was dismissed from service like the petitioner-appellant appellant without holding an inquiry because the Senior Superintendent of Police has invoked second proviso (b) appended to clause (2) of Article 311 for dispensing with the inquiry opining that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inq inquiry in his case. After exhausting departmental remedy he lost before this Court. The Appellate Authority had found in Kuldip Singh's case (supra) that he was mixed up with the terrorists and he was supplying secret information of the police department to them, which created hindrance in its smooth functioning. He was interrogated in a case (FIR No. 219/1990) where he admitted to have links with the terrorists like Major Singh Shahid and Sital Singh Jakhar. Despite the fact that he was acquitted in case FIR No.219/1990, the use of the aforesaid interrogation and his admission was not considered irrelevant for the purposes of concluding that inquiry was not reasonably practicable to be held. Their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have gone to the extent that even if the confession has been made to the police or while in custody of the police, it would not be of much consequence as long as it is germane to the requirement of Article 311(2)(b) and inspires confidence. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is evident from the perusal of para 11, which reads thus:
"11. In this sense, if the appellant's confession is relevant, the fact that it was made to the police or while in the custody of the police may not be of much consequence for the reason that strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to departmental/disciplinary enquiries. In a departmental enquiry, it would perhaps be
16 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 17 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 permissible for the authorities to prove that the appellant did make such a confession/admission during the course of interrogation aand it would be for the disciplinary authority to decide whether it is a voluntary confession/admission or not. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the statement was indeed voluntary and true, he may well be entitled to act upon the ssaid statement. Here, the authorities say that they were satisfied about the truth of the appellant's confession. There is undoubtedly no other material. There is also the fact that the appellant has been acquitted by the Designated Court. We must say that the facts of this case did present us with a difficult choice. The fact, however, remains that the High Court has opined that there was enough material before the appropriate authority upon which it could come to a reasonable conclusion that it was not rea reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311
311. Nothing has been brought to our notice to persuade us not to accept the said finding of the High Court. Even a copy of the counter filed by the respondents in the High Cou Court is not placed before us. Once proviso (b) is held to have been validly invoked, the Government servant concerned is left with no legitimate ground to impugn the action except perhaps to say that the facts said to have been found against him do not warrant nt the punishment actually awarded. So far as the present case is concerned, if one believes that the confession made by the appellant was voluntary and true, the punishment awarded cannot be said to be excessive. The appellant along with some others 17 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 18 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 causedd the death of the Superintendent of Police and a few other police officials. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a situation obtaining in Punjab during the years 1990 1990-91.
Moreover, the appellate authority has also agreed with the disciplinary authority uthority that there were good grounds for coming to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the appellant and that the appellant was guilty of the crime confessed by him. There is no allegation of mala ffides levelled against the appellate authority. The disciplinary and the appellate authorities are the men on the spot and we have no reason to believe that their decision has not been arrived at fairly. The High Court is also satisfied with the reasons for which the disciplinary enquiry was dispensed with. In the face of all these circumstances, it is not possible for us to take a different view at this stage. It is not permissible for us to go into the question whether the confession made by the appellant is voluntary or not, once it has been accepted as voluntary by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."
24. In view of the aforesaid, we find that in the present case the condition that there are sufficient reasons, which are germane to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b), stands satisfied. Once it has been found, while investigating case FIR No. 159/92, dated ed 28.12.1992, that Jaspal Singh alias Kulwant Singh had revealed that the petitioner petitioner-appellant was mixed up with the terrorists and was passing on secret information to them then no fault can be found with the order dated 17.6.1993 (P-28).
28). The report of tthe Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, dated 15.6.1993, 18 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 19 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 based on the interrogation has also been placed on record along with the affidavit dated 8.2.2011, which reads as under:
" ASI Yunis Masih No. 2077/ASR has been found to be mixed up with terrorists. It is not practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry against him in public interest and as such it is dispensed with by virtue of power conferred upon me by Article 311(2)(b)
b) of Constitution of India read with PPR 16(1). ASI Yunis Masih No. 2077/ASR is hereby dismissed from service w.e.f. 15.06.1993 F.N."
x x x x
26. It is, thus, evident that even second condition that the reason in writing should be cited in the order order, stands satisfied. On further examination of the original record the aforesaid fact is fully substantiated. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be approved, which has upheld the order dated 17.6.1993 (P (P-
28) and the subsequent appellate order (P (P-29)."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) has held as under: -
"6. Clause (3) of Article 311, it may be noticed, declares that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2), the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such person shall be final on that question. The Tribunal hass not referred to clause (3) at all in its order. We are not suggesting that because of clause (3), the court or the Tribunal should completely shut its eyes. Nor are we suggesting that in every case the court should blindly accept that recital in terms of the said proviso contained in the order of dismissal. Be that as it may, without going 19 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 20 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 into the question of extent and scope of judicial review in such a matter, we may look to the facts of this case. The Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, has report reported that the respondent "is a terror in the area" and, more important, in his very presence, the respondent "intimidated the complainant Shri Ranjit Singh who appeared to be visibly terrified of this Sub Inspector". It is also reported that the other person persons who were arrested with Ranjit Singh, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent."
13. Dismissal of the appellant was based upon credible material indicating his association and contacts with terrorist elements.
This Court is of the considered opinion that that, at the relevant point of time, terrorism was at its peak in the State of Punjab Punjab. In such a volatile environment, there existed sufficient ufficient grounds for dispens dispensing with the holding of a regular departmental enquiry.. It is evident that no witness would have come forward to depose against the appellant-plaintiff due to fear of reprisal and threat to life.
life Further, a departmental enquiry would have taken a long time and duri during the pendency thereof, permitting the appellant to continue in service till its completion would have posted a serious risk to public safety, discipline of the force, and the largest public interest.
interest Hence, it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental partmental enquiry in this case.
20 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 21 RSA-2525 of 1994 19
14. It is true that for holding a departmental enquiry, the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules Rules, 1934 might be mandatorily ily adhered to.
to. However, same is not applicable to the cases where no departmental inquiry is to be held. In the present case, departmental inquiry was dispensed with as the same was not practicable,, therefore, Rule 16.38 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, reads aas under:-
"16.38. Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Courts - Procedure regardin regarding -
(1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the publi public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected Executive Magistrate. (2) When investigation of such a complaint establishes a prima facie case, a judiciall prosecution shall normally follow; the matter shall be disposed of departmentally only if the District Magistrate so orders for reasons to be recorded. When it is decided to proceed departmentally the procedure prescribed in rule 16.24 shall be followed. An officer found guilty on a charge of the nature referred to in this rule shall ordinarily be dismissed."
16. This Court in Constable Pale Ram vs. State of Haryana and others passed in CWP No. 24413 of 2012 2012, decided on 14.12.2012 21 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 22 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 held that "the said Rule Rule i.e. Rule 16.38, comes into operation in case the punishing authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police instead of proceeding against the delinquent employee for judicial prosecution decides not to proceed for the same purpose and instead decides to ta take action departmentally. It is in this situation that the concurrence of the District Magistrate has to be obtained." Reliance is also placed on the judgments of this Court in RSA-963 963 of 2000 - Surinder Pal v.
Haryana State and another, another decided on 15.05.
15.05.2024; RSA-2491 of 1994 - The State of Punjab v. Constable Jaswinder Singh Singh, decided on 30.05.2024 and RSA-2797 of 1999 - Ved Parkash and others v. State of Haryana, Haryana decided on 31.05.2024.
17. The judgments udgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as mentioned above are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case case. In the case of Jaswant Singh h (supra), (supra), the appellant was placed under suspension on April 19, 1978 on the ground he had absented himself from duty to attend the Annual Nirankari Samagam held on April 13, 1978. After enquiry, he was exonerated and taken back in service with effect from the date of his suspension.
suspension. Thereafter, two departmental enquiries were initiated against him. As per outcome of the first enquiry, he was reverted to the lower post of Constable; the second enquiry resulted in his dismissal from service. The enquiry orders pertain to dated 27.4.1979 and 12.10.1979 respectively. These orders were challenged by two separate appeals which were dismissed, vide orders dated 18/19.03.1980.
Aggrieved by, two separate revision applications were filed to the 22 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 23 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 inspector General of Police, Punjab which were allowed on October 13, 1980 and both the cases were remanded with a direction to re-consider the inquiry report and pass fresh orders. The enquiry officer was directed to reinstate the appellant and then issue fresh show cause notices. The appellant rejoined duties as Head Constable on March 5, 1981. He was again placed under suspension suspension forthwith and show show-cause notice was issued to him why he should not be dismissed from service.
Before the service of these show cause notices an incident occurred on April 6, 1981 and allegation against the appellant was that he tried to plunge his chest chest with a knife to commit suicide. The appellant was charge-sheeted sheeted under Section ection 309 Cr.P.C. and was sent to the hospital for treatment. While he was in hospital, two show show-cause notices were served on him on April 6, 1981.Even 1981 ven though he was allowed 10 ddays time to show cause, the respondent who was biased against him passed the impugned order of dismissal on April 7, 1981. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the earlier departmental enquiries were duly conducted against the appellant and there was no allegation that the department faced any difficulty in examining witnesses in such enquiries, the authorities were required to justify what impelled them to terminate the services of the appellant forthwith without holding an enquiry as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India India.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order date dated 7.4.1981 was passed, passed as the petitioner's activities were objectionable.
He was instigating his fellow police officials to cause indiscipline, show insubordination insubordination and exhibit disloyalty, spreading discontentment 23 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 24 RSA-2525 of 1994 19 and hatred, etc. and his retention in service was adjudged harmful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision to dispense with a departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on tthe ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction rendered by the concerned authority is questioned before a court of law, it is incumbent upon on those supporting support the order, to demonstrate that such satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from those of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant appellant. In the present case, the appellant was dismissed from service, on account of his contacts with extremists and his conduct.
conduct In support thereof, the State has placed on record two secret reports dated 16.07.1987 and 02.11.1987 02.11.1987.
At the relevant time, terrorism was at its peak in the State of Punjab, therefore, impugned order dated 14.11.1987 rendered by the concerned authority dispensing dispens with the holding of regular departmental enquiry was justified ified and proper, as no witness would have been willing to come forward to depose against the appellant appellant-plaintiff. Equally distinguishable are the other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant.
appellant
18. No other point has been urged.
19. In view of the above, appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree of the appellate Court is upheld.. Decree Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
24 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 ::: 25 RSA-2525 of 1994 19
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
18.02.2026 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
25 of 25
::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 00:19:14 :::