4 min readNew DelhiJul 2, 2026 03:01 PM IST
First published on: Jul 2, 2026 at 03:01 PM IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the dismissal of three police officers accused in narcotics cases, holding that the state wrongly sacked them by bypassing departmental inquiries.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel ruled that dispensing with an inquiry is an exceptional power requiring concrete reasons, not mere allegations, and allowed fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law. The court noted that as per the office memorandum, a disciplinary inquiry cannot be avoided lightly or arbitrarily or because the department’s case against the civil servant is weak.
The June 26 order stated that in terms of “constitutional immunity”, no person shall be dismissed or reduced in rank “except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.”
The case involves three Himachal Pradesh Police personnel who were dismissed from service without a departmental inquiry after they were named in criminal cases, including for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Neeraj Kumar, an inspector, was facing three cases, including one under the Prevention of Corruption Act and another under the NDPS Act. He had earlier faced a departmental inquiry and received a minor penalty. However, in January 2026, the director general of police (DGP) invoked Article 311(2)(b) (dismissal or demotion without departmental inquiry) of the Constitution and dismissed him from service without a hearing.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said the exceptions under Article 311 (2)(b) can be invoked only if the circumstances justify it.
Rajat Chandel and Rahul Verma, both constables, were accused in an NDPS case and departmental inquiries were underway against them when the DGP dismissed them too under the same provision before the inquiries or the criminal trial concluded. The petitioners challenged their dismissal on the ground that the DGP illegally invoked Article 311(2)(b) without allowing them to be heard.
Senior counsel K D Shreedhar, appearing for Neeraj Kumar, argued that the DGP’s order was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. He submitted that once a departmental was initiated and a minor penalty imposed on the petitioner, the DGP can’t revise the order and sack the petitioner.
Due process must prevail: Order
- The moot question involved is whether the termination of the petitioners’ services without holding an inquiry is legally sustainable, the court stated.
- There is no dispute that the petitioners have been booked under the NDPS Act or that harsh measures are required to fight the drug menace. But no matter what, the due process of law has to be followed in every case.
- As per the office memorandum, it is a constitutional obligation that the reasons of dismissal have to be recorded in writing. Otherwise, the order dispensing with the inquiry and resultant penalty would both be invalid.
- The exceptions mentioned under Article 311 (2)(b) can be invoked only if the circumstances justify it.
Dismissal set aside
The court allowed all three petitions, set aside the dismissal orders dated January 12, 2026, and held that invoking Article 311(2)(b) was illegal unless it was under exceptional circumstances. However, it clarified that the authorities remain free to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with the law.
The court said there is no dispute that the petitioners have been booked under the NDPS Act, but no matter what, the due process of law has to be followed in every case. (AI-generated image) 
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said the exceptions under Article 311 (2)(b) can be invoked only if the circumstances justify it.
Share
