To Dismiss Public Servant Without Dept Enquiry, Sufficient Cause Must Be Shown : Supreme Court Reinstantes Delhi Police Officer

The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 12) observed that the power to dismiss a government servant from service without holding a departmental enquiry cannot be exercised on mere presumption that conducting such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. The Court added that the decision of the authority to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry before dismissing a government servant should be supported by some material.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by the Delhi police constable, who was dismissed from service without holding a departmental enquiry on the presumption of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) that conducting such an enquiry would not be reasonably practicable, as the appellant, facing a criminal trial, might threaten or intimidate witnesses.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court restored the services of the appellant, holding that the High Court erred in upholding his dismissal. The Court observed that the power to dismiss a government servant without holding an enquiry under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution can be exercised only when it is not reasonably practicable to conduct such an enquiry, and the decision to dispense with it must be supported by relevant material.

Observing that the DCP's report did not disclose any specific instance of threat or intimidation to justify dispensing with a departmental enquiry, the Court held that the appellant's dismissal without conducting such an enquiry was illegal and unsustainable in law.

“In the case at hand after registration of the FIR when the appellant was in custody the order of dismissal was passed. He was released only thereafter. As such, without indicating any instance of intimidation, traumatising, threatening or persuading the complainant or the witness to turn hostile from inside the jail, the belief or presumption as recorded by the disciplinary authority is not sufficient to bring the present case within the exception to Article 311(2) by applying clause (b) of second proviso thereto.”, the court observed.

Provisions Involved

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India contemplates that if a person is a member of a civil service of the Union or all India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State, he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard.

However, Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) states that where the authority empowered to remove a person is satisfied for some reason to be recorded in writing, to the effect that holding an inquiry is not 'reasonably practicable', the orders of dismissal can be passed without adhering to the general principle contemplated by Article 311(2).

A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that conducting an enquiry before dismissing a government servant from service is the general rule. However, where the competent authority records reasons to believe that holding such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable, the government servant may be dismissed without conducting an enquiry.

The Case

The appellant was serving as a constable in the Special Cell of the Delhi Police when an FIR was registered against him for offences including robbery and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was arrested. While he was still in custody, the Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed him from service, invoking Article 311(2)(b) and stating that conducting a departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable because witnesses could be threatened or intimidated.

The constable challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but his plea was rejected. His writ petition was also dismissed by the Delhi High Court, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari asserted that to invoke Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the authority dismissing the government servant must have relevant materials to support its decision to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry. The dismissal should not be based on mere presumptions, the court said.

“The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.”, the court quoted in approval the observation made in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors, (1991) 1 SCC 362.

The Court rejected the DCP's bald assertions that the appellant was threatening and intimidating witnesses to justify his dismissal, noting that the preliminary enquiry report did not disclose any instance or material supporting the decision to dismiss the appellant without holding an enquiry.

“No material showing connection of the appellant and his associates with criminals which may reasonably demonstrate that there is a possibility of the complainant or witnesses being approached through his associates with an intent to threaten, intimidate or induce them to withdraw from the case or turn hostile is on record. In absence of any material, in our view, it is merely a presumption of the ACP who conducted the preliminary enquiry and it cannot form the basis of a reasonable apprehension which may be sufficient to dispense with the regular disciplinary inquiry.”, the court observed.

“…without indicating any instance of intimidation, traumatising, threatening or persuading the complainant or the witness to turn hostile from inside the jail, the belief or presumption as recorded by the disciplinary authority is not sufficient to bring the present case within the exception to Article 311(2) by applying clause (b) of second proviso thereto. Thus, in our view, the reasoning contemplated in the judgment of Jaswant Singh (Supra) applies in the case at hand.”, the court added.

Thus, the Court held:

“On overall analysis of the intent of Article 311(2), it is vivid that an employee holding a post in Union or State ought not to be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one by which he was appointed. It is further specified that a person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank after an inquiry supplying the charges if any against him and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The applicability of the said clause is restricted in a situation wherein his conduct led to his conviction of criminal charges or where the authority empowered who dismissed, removed or reduced in rank records reason in writing upon satisfaction that it is not 'reasonably practicable' to hold an enquiry against him.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the constable with continuity of service.

However, considering that the appellant was involved in a pending criminal case, the Court limited his back wages to 50% from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. The Court also clarified that the reinstatement would not prevent the authorities from initiating a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with the law.

“…the irresistible conclusion is to set aside the order passed by the CAT and the High Court and to quash the order of dismissal passed by the DCP and confirmed by the appellate authority. In consequence, the appellant shall forthwith be reinstated with continuity of service. He shall be entitled for all consequential benefits notionally. Since, the appellant is found involved in a criminal case, therefore, in the facts of the case, back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement are restricted to 50%.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Choudhary, AOR Mr. Ram Niwas Buri, Adv. Mr. Basudeb Biswas, Adv. Mr. Naresh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv. Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mili Baxi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Vikram, Adv.