1. Police officer dismissed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution for bribery after the authority dispensed with a departmental inquiry due to witness intimidation. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 579
1998(8) Supreme 509
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Chandigarh)
S.C. Agrawal & G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Chandigarh Administration & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ex. S.I. Gurdit Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10541/1996)
Decided on 27-3-1997
Under Article 311(3) of the Constitution of India, the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss a person regarding whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) is final, and such a decision is upheld if based on justifiable grounds.
Headnote:Service Law - Constitution of India-Article 311(2) and (3)-Dismissal from service without holding regular departmental enquiry-Delinquent was Sub-Inspector of police-Disciplinary authority concluding that regular departmental enquiry would not serve purpose since no person would come forward to give statement/evidence against delinquent on account of fear to their life and property-Dismissal from service dispensing with regular departmental enquiry holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry-Held, on facts and circumstances disciplinary was justified in his action.
Held : Clause (3) of Article 311 declares that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as contemplated by clause (2) the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss such person shall be final on that question. (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with the departmental inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
3. The Tribunal erred by ignoring Article 311(3), which stipulates that the authority's decision on the practicability of holding an inquiry is final. (Para 7 , 9 )
4. Under Article 311(3) of the Constitution, the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss a person regarding the practicability of holding an inquiry is final. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; the Tribunal's judgment quashing the dismissal order is set aside. (Para 10 )
6. What is the legal status of the authority's decision regarding the practicability of holding a departmental inquiry under Article 311?
According to Article 311(3) of the Constitution, if a question arises as to whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss the person is final. (Para 7 )
7. Under what circumstances can a departmental inquiry be dispensed with under the Constitution?
Under the proviso to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, an inquiry may be dispensed with if the appointing authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold one. (Para 3 )
8. Does the potential for witnesses to appear in a criminal case preclude the dispensing of a departmental inquiry?
No; the court held that the disciplinary authority's decision on the practicability of holding an inquiry is final under Article 311(3), regardless of the Tribunal's view on witness availability in criminal proceedings. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 )
Order
Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The respondent, Gurdit Singh, was employed as Sub-Inspector of Police with the Police Department in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. A complaint was made against him on 20.1.1991 by one Smt. Meenakshi, wife of Shri Nishan Singh, alleging that the respondent had demanded bribe from her for releasing the gold ornaments of her husband and other articles which were retained by him at the Police Station before releasing her husband and her driver who were detained in police custody. On receipt of the said complaint a trap was laid in the presence of two witnesses and the respondent who was in police uniform was caught red-handed on the night of 29.1.1991, at the residence of the complainant while demanding and accepting Rs. 2000 from the complainant for the release of the articles. A criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him and the same was entrusted to CBI for investigation. In the meanwhile a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East, Chandigarh and after considering the report of the said preliminary enquiry the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh passed the following order on 16.2.1991 whereby the respondent was dismissed from service:
“Whereas, you Gurdit Singh are holding the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
It has been brought to my notice that you have been indulging in disloyal, dishonest, disobedient and unreliable activities which amounts to grave misconduct on the part of a police officer.
Shri S.C. Abrol, Deputy Superintendent of Police (East), has also conducted an enquiry against you for your aforesaid notorious activities and misdeeds and submitted a report which proves your misconduct.
From the facts and circumstances of your case, I am subjectively satisfied that you have indulged in disloyal, dishonest, disobedient and unreliable activities.
And further, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, after considering all the facts and circumstances of your case, am satisfied under sub-clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against you for the reason that the witnesses cannot come forward freely to depose against you in the departmental enquiry on account of fear to their life and property.
Now, therefore, I Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, your appointing authority hereby dismiss you from government service with immediate effect.”
4. In his report the Deputy Superintendent of Police had stated:
“I may mention here that this Sub-Inspector is a terror in the area and is a very influential person. No person will come forward to give any statement regarding this incident against him and will serve no purpose to have any departmental enquiry against him. It is recommended that stern disciplinary action be taken against him.”
5. The respondent filed a petition (OA No. 414/CH/91) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 14.9.1995 and the order of dismissal dated 16.2.1991 has been quashed on the view that the disciplinary authority, viz., the Senior Superintendent of Police, was in error in dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The Tribunal, has observed:
“When the respondents feel that the witnesses can appear to depose against the appellant in the criminal case, it cannot be believed that the witnesses would not appear to depose against the applicant in the regular departmental proceedings if it is held. It may also be mentioned here that in the preliminary enquiry witnesses did appear to depose against the applicant, hence it cannot be presumed that the wit
