1. Dismissal of a government servant from service without a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1278
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Constable Chhote Lal
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/29/99
The power to dispense with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution of India must be exercised in accordance with established legal conditions; failure to satisfy these conditions renders the dismissal order unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) - Dismissal from service - Dispensation of departmental inquiry - Power to dispense with an inquiry is subject to conditions precedent - If such conditions are not satisfied, the order dispensing with the inquiry is not in accordance with law and the resulting order of dismissal cannot be sustained. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee serving as a police constable was dismissed from service by the departmental authority without a departmental inquiry, exercising power under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The employee challenged the dismissal, contending that the dispensation of the inquiry was not justified. The challenge was dismissed by the Tribunal and subsequently by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The order dispensing with the departmental inquiry was not in accordance with law, and consequently, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. While the dismissal was set aside, back wages were denied in view of the nature of the charges against the employee. (Paras 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the conditions precedent for exercising the power to dispense with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution were satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to dispense with an inquiry under the Constitution is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the law and conditions precedent established by judicial precedents. An apprehension that an employee might influence witnesses does not automatically justify the dispensation of an inquiry if the legal requirements for such dispensation are not met.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the conditions precedent for dispensing with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution were satisfied. (Para 3 )
3. The order dispensing with the departmental inquiry failed to satisfy the legal conditions precedent required for exercising power under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b). (Para 4 )
4. An order dispensing with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution must strictly adhere to established legal conditions precedent. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; dismissal order set aside; departmental authority permitted to conduct a fresh inquiry; back wages denied. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Under what circumstances can a departmental inquiry be dispensed with for a government servant?
An inquiry can be dispensed with under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution, provided the conditions precedent established by the court are satisfied. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Does the apprehension that an employee might influence witnesses justify dispensing with a departmental inquiry?
While such apprehension is a consideration, the court must find that the order dispensing with the inquiry is in accordance with the law and established conditions precedent. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. Is an employee automatically entitled to back wages when a dismissal order is set aside?
Normally, an employee can claim back wages when a dismissal order is set aside, but the court may deny them based on the nature of the charges. (Para 5 )
(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.
