The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that upon the registration of an FIR against police officers, State authorities should avoid dismissing them and may consider placing them under suspension instead.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that, "respondent authorities should avoid to dismiss a police officer close on the heels of registration of FIR. He may be put on suspension in terms of Rule 16.19 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The departmental inquiry may be deferred but it should not be dispensed with in a mechanical manner."

The Court was hearing seven petitions with common issues involving Punjab Police officers who had been dismissed from service and later reinstated. Notably, these officers were paid for the period from their dismissal to their reinstatement.

The Court observed that upon FIR registration against police officials, the jurisdictional SSP often opts to dispense with mandatory inquiries. According to Article 311 (2) of the Indian Constitution, an inquiry can only be dispensed with under specific conditions: (i) if the person is convicted of a criminal charge, (ii) if it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, or (iii) if it is deemed expedient for state security by the President or Governor. The Court noted that merely stating "it is not practicable to hold inquiry" does not comply with constitutional mandates or Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

The Court emphasized that dispensing with an inquiry should be an exception, not the rule, suggesting that suspension and subsequent inquiry should be considered instead of immediate dismissal.

Referring to Fundamental Rules and PCS Rules 7.3 and 7.3A, the Court stated that the competent authority must determine the salary payable to reinstated employees who were not fully exonerated, ensuring they receive at least the subsistence allowance.

Cause Title: Iqbal Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment