Click the Play button to listen to article

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of two police constables convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), observing that the involvement of police personnel in NDPS offences was a serious matter.

The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, the dismissal of the constables was neither grossly excessive nor disproportionate to the offences committed.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The convicts happen to be employees of the police department. In other words, the constables of the police department themselves have been convicted for the commission of offense under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The protectors of law themselves have become violators of law.” 

Background:

The case concerned two police constables, Gaurav Verma and Lakshay Chauhan, who were dismissed from service after being convicted of offences under the NDPS Act. Gaurav Verma, appointed as a Constable in 2009, was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act after 1003 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from him. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fined ₹25,000. Lakshay Chauhan, appointed as a Constable in 2015 under the sports quota, was convicted under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act in connection with an FIR registered in 2019.

Both petitioners challenged their dismissal orders before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, contending that the Director General of Police had wrongly invoked Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution to dismiss them without holding a departmental inquiry. They also argued that the DGP was not competent to impose the punishment and that the suspension of their sentences during the pendency of their criminal appeals rendered the dismissal unsustainable.

The Court held that the DGP was competent to dismiss the petitioners, as Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules permits an officer of a higher rank to impose dismissal on a Constable.

Relying on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Court held that conviction does not automatically warrant dismissal; the authority must consider the conduct leading to the conviction and the appropriate penalty.

The Court found that the DGP had considered the nature and gravity of the NDPS offences and the convictionsbefore ordering dismissal. Given that the petitioners were police personnel, dismissal was not disproportionate.

The Court held that suspension of sentence during pendency of an appeal does not bar action under Article 311(2)(a) where the conviction continues to subsist.

Finding no illegality in the dismissal orders, the Court dismissed both writ petitions.

Case Name: Gaurav Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.6783 of 2026

Date of Decision: 29.07.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: