The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that mere registration of an FIR against a government employee or allegations of links with criminal elements cannot, by themselves, justify dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry and dismissing the employee from service. Setting aside the dismissal of a Punjab Police constable, the court has ordered his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.Justice Namit Kumar held that the exceptional power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution could be invoked only when specific factual circumstances established that holding a departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable.“Mere registration of an FIR or an allegation of links with criminal elements cannot render the holding of a regular departmental enquiry reasonably impracticable,” the court observed.Elaborating on the procedure to be followed, Justice Kumar said the disciplinary authority was required to disclose the specific factual circumstances that made it reasonably impracticable to hold a departmental inquiry.The authority was also required to demonstrate, on the basis of material available on record, why witnesses could not be adequately protected or examined to ensure a fair inquiry.The case concerned a constable who joined the Punjab Police on November 22, 2016. He was named in an FIR registered on January 10, 2021, at Kartarpur police station in Jalandhar (Rural), under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. He was arrested the same day and released on bail on February 12, 2021.After being placed under suspension, he was reinstated on August 21, 2021, subject to a pending departmental inquiry. Two charge-sheets were subsequently issued to him—one concerning his absence from duty for 142 days and the other relating to his alleged involvement in the FIR.However, he was dismissed from service on November 9, 2021, by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules. His appeal against the dismissal was rejected on October 27, 2022.The state defended its action by relying on a confidential report of the inquiry officer, which alleged that the constable had links with persons involved in the drug trade and was influencing prosecution witnesses, making it difficult to conduct a fair inquiry.Rejecting the justification, Justice Kumar pointed out that the dismissal order neither identified the witnesses allegedly influenced nor specified the acts attributed to the constable. It also failed to explain why the witnesses could not be examined by adopting appropriate safeguards.There was no finding that any witness had refused to depose or expressed apprehension due to any threat or intimidation, the court noted.“A bald assertion that the delinquent employee has links with criminal elements or that he may influence witnesses cannot, in the absence of supporting facts, satisfy the constitutional requirement provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution,” Justice Kumar observed.The court further held that the exceptional constitutional power could not be exercised merely because the disciplinary authority considered an employee undesirable or unfit to continue in service.It also noted that a regular departmental inquiry had already been initiated. If the inquiry officer noticed any attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses, the competent authority could deal with such conduct in accordance with law and take appropriate protective or administrative measures.Holding that the dismissal order failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Article 311(2)(b), the High Court quashed both the dismissal order and the appellate order. It directed the authorities to reinstate the constable with all consequential benefits.Justice Kumar, however, clarified that the reinstatement would not prejudice the department’s right to continue the departmental proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules or take an appropriate decision after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.