(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant who was a Constable has been dismissed from service by the departmental authority without holding any inquiry and exercising power under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution of India. Having failed in his attempt to get the order of the departmental authority annulled in appeal, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") mainly contending that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, dispensation of an inquiry is not justified. The Tribunal having dismissed his application, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court having dismissed his writ petition, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.

(3) MR Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that though the employer has the power to dispense with an inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution but the conditions precedent for exercising that power have now been indicated in several decisions of this Court and in the present case, those conditions precedent cannot be said to have been satisfied. Mr Choudhary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appellant himself being a Police Constable could have influenced the witnesses who would have come in the departmental inquiry and if on that ground the departmental authorities apprehended that the inquiry would not be reasonable and fair, the conclusion cannot be interfered with.

(4) HAVING examined the rival contentions of the parties and bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court indicating the circumstances under which the inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution can be dispensed with and applying the same to the facts and circumstances and the reasons advanced by the authorities in arriving at the decision, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order dispensing with the departmental inquiry is not in accordance with law and necessarily the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the order of dismissal passed against the appellant and permit the departmental authority to hold an inquiry if so desired, in accordance with law and come to the conclusion in the said proceeding.

(5) NORMALLY, an order of dismissal on being set aside, the employee can claim back wages, but in this case we are not inclined to grant back wages to the employee concerned, more so, in view of the nature of charges against him.

(6) THIS appeal is accordingly allowed.