Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the dismissal of a police officer from service without conducting a departmental inquiry, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 18 July 2017, citing that holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable due to alleged threats and intimidation of witnesses. This order was upheld by the appellate authority on 30 July 2018, the Central Administrative Tribunal on 29 November 2022, and the Delhi High Court on 2 February 2023. The appellant challenged these orders, arguing that the dismissal violated constitutional safeguards and the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The core legal issue was whether the authority validly exercised the extraordinary power to dispense with an inquiry under Article 311(2). The appellant's counsel contended that the reasons were flimsy, especially since the appellant was in custody, and emphasized that major penalties like dismissal require a regular inquiry under the Rules. The State argued that the preliminary inquiry showed a reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, justifying the bypass. The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 21 and 22 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and Rules 5, 6, 14, and 16 of the 1980 Rules, noting that dismissal is a major penalty mandating a regular inquiry. The Court examined clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2), which allows dispensing with an inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable, requiring recorded reasons. The Court found that the authority's reasons—based on mere apprehension without concrete evidence—did not meet the stringent test of reasonable practicability. It held that the power was exercised arbitrarily, especially as the appellant was in custody, making the threat of intimidation unlikely. The Court quashed the dismissal order and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, emphasizing strict adherence to constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Civil Service Safeguards - Article 311(2) Second Proviso Clause (b) - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2) - Appellant, a police officer, was dismissed without departmental inquiry under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) citing reasonable impracticability due to alleged witness intimidation - Court examined whether the authority recorded sufficient reasons to justify dispensing with inquiry - Held that mere apprehension without concrete evidence does not satisfy the 'reasonably practicable' test, and the dismissal order was unsustainable (Paras 12-18). -- B) Service Law - Police Discipline - Major Penalty Procedure - Delhi Police Act, 1978, Sections 21, 22 and Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, Rules 5, 6, 14, 16 - Dismissal is a major penalty under Rule 6 requiring regular departmental inquiry under Rules 14 and 16 - Authority invoked extraordinary power under Article 311(2) second proviso to bypass this procedure - Court held that such power must be exercised sparingly with recorded reasons, and in this case, the reasons were insufficient (Paras 9-11, 15-16). -- C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Reasonableness of Administrative Action - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2) - Authority dismissed appellant while he was in custody, citing witness intimidation as reason for not holding inquiry - Court found this reasoning flimsy and not supported by convincing material - Held that the exercise of power was arbitrary and amounted to misuse, warranting judicial interference (Paras 6, 13-14, 17).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service under clause (b) of second provposition to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India without conducting a departmental inquiry was legally sustainable?
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the dismissal order dated 18.07.2017 and all subsequent orders, and directed reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.
