IMPORTANT POINT
Competent authority can dispense with enquiry, but the reasons therefor have to be stated.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 19816/2008 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the Government after dispensing with the inquiry as provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

2. The broad essential facts which need to be adumbrated for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ad hoc Sub-Inspector) serving in the Department of Police in the State of Haryana, as alleged, was involved in a corruption sting operation in a television channel. Because of the said alleged sting operation, the Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, vide order dated 19.06.2008, after referring to the news item in the television channel, proceeded to pass the following order:

“.....

2. The above said act on the part of above official shows his criminal activities. He being a member of a disciplined force is responsible for protecting the life and property of the citizen of this country, but instead of discharging his duty honestly and sincerely he himself has indulged in criminal activities. As such he has not only tarnished the image of the Haryana Police but also has rudely shaken faith of the citizens of Haryana in the entire Police force, who is supposed to be their protectors. He has acted in a most reprehensible manner. Which is unexpected from a member of disciplined force and undoubtedly extremely prejudicial to the person safety and security of citizen.

3. The involvement of said police official in such a shameful criminal activity has eroded the faith of common people and his continuance in the force is likely to cause further irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of Haryana Police. The defaulter has acted in a manner highly unbecoming of police official. After such act of serious misconduct. If he is allowed to continue in the Police force, it would be detrimental to public interest.

4. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of above operation, I K.K. Rao, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India I hereby order the dismissal of SI Rishal Singh No. 133/GGN with immediate effect. A copy of this order be delivered to him free of cost.”

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a civil writ petition and the High Court without adverting to the essential contention that no reason had been ascribed for dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) opined that prompt action was required to be taken to avoid spreading of trouble and, therefore, the order passed by the authority was justified.

4. Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the power with the employer rests to dispense with the inquiry invoking the constitutional provision, yet appropriate reasons have to be ascribed and in absence of ascription of reasons, the order is vitiated in law and the eventual consequence would be quashment of the order of dismissal.

5. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that regard being had to the nature of allegations, the Superintendent of Police, who is the competent authority, thought it appropriate to dispense with the inquiry and, hence, the order of dismissal cannot be flawed.

6. We have already reproduced the order passed by the competent authority. On a bare perusal of the same, it is clear as day that it is bereft of reason. Non-ascribing of reason while passing an order dispensing with enquiry, which otherwise is a must, definitely invalidates such an action. In this context, reference to the authority in Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel[(1985) 3 SCC 398] is apposite. In the said case the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b), has