Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Manohar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13860 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2026
(A) Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Delhi Police Act, 1978 – Section 21 – Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rules 14 and 16 – Dismissal from service without conducting departmental inquiry – Reason assigned for not resorting to normal procedure prescribed under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was that Assistant Commissioner of Police in preliminary enquiry found that it would not be ‘reasonably practicable’ to conduct regular departmental enquiry on account of reasonable belief of threat, intimidation and inducement to victim and thereby creating possibility of tampering of vital evidence – Decision of appointing authority on issue of recording reasons in writing on its satisfaction as to why holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable may be subject to judicial review under Article 226 by High Court or under Article 32 by Supreme Court – Constitutional provision has a far greater and all-pervading sanctity than a statutory provision – Whether act as alleged in FIR is egregious in nature, would be a subject matter of trial – No material showing connection of appellant and his associates with criminals which may reasonably demonstrate that there is a possibility of complainant or witnesses being approached through his associates with an intent to threaten, intimidate or induce them to withdraw from case or turn hostile is on record – In absence of any material, it is merely a presumption of ACP who conducted preliminary enquiry and it cannot form basis of a reasonable apprehension which may be sufficient to dispense with regular disciplinary inquiry. (Paras 16, 17 and 28)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Dismissal from service without conducting departmental inquiry – In statement of witnesses no incident of traumatising complainant and witnesses have been recorded, nothing is available on record to accept plea of threatening, intimidation or inducement to any witness to turn hostile – Disciplinary authority proceeded on presumption of ACP who conducted preliminary enquiry without any material and concluded that holding a regular enquiry is not reasonably practicable – It was duty of disciplinary authority to satisfy himself that such reasoning as indicated in preliminary enquiry report is based on some material, sufficient to dispense with an enquiry – In absence of same, merely belief or a presumption is not sufficient to record such finding and to deviate from normal procedure – In preliminary enquiry report none of witnesses have indicated about threat or intimidation or possibility of threat to turn those witnesses hostile, order passed by disciplinary authority dispensing with enquiry as required is without application of mind and cannot be sustained – It is duty of disciplinary authority to record satisfaction how and in what manner holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicable – Besides, an employee holding a post in Union or State ought not to be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one by which he was appointed – Order of dismissal set aside – Appellant shall forthwith be reinstated with continuity of service – He shall be entitled for all consequential benefits notionally, alongwith 50% back wages. (Paras 31, 40, 41 and 42)
Facts of the case:
The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Delhi disposing of writ petition filed by appellant questioning order of dismissal from service dated 18.07.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Order of Appellate Authority dated 30.07.2018 and Order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in OA No. 744 of 2020.
Findings of Court:
The setting aside of order passed under Article 311(2) proviso (b) of Constitution and direction for reinstatement shall be without prejudice to right of respondent to take recourse as permissible by initiating a departmental enquiry in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The case involves the dismissal of the appellant, a police officer, from service by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, under the authority granted by the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The order of dismissal was issued on 18.07.2017 without conducting a departmental inquiry, which is typically required for major penalties such as dismissal (!) (!) .
The disciplinary authority relied on a preliminary inquiry report conducted by an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), which suggested that holding a regular departmental inquiry would not be reasonably practicable due to alleged threats, intimidation, and inducements to witnesses and victims, purportedly to prevent tampering with vital evidence (!) (!) (!) . The order of dismissal cited these reasons, asserting that the circumstances and preliminary findings justified dispensing with the normal procedural safeguards, and thus invoked the exception under the second proviso to Article 311(2) (!) (!) .
However, the appellant challenged the legality of this order, asserting that the reasons provided were based solely on presumption and lacked concrete material or evidence to substantiate the claim that holding a departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The appellant's contention was that the order was passed while he was in custody, and no specific instances of threats or intimidation from within custody were established to justify bypassing the inquiry process (!) (!) .
The higher courts examined whether the disciplinary authority had properly recorded its satisfaction and whether the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry were valid, genuine, and based on objective material. The courts found that the order was passed without proper application of mind and on presumptive grounds, which was not permissible under the law (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts held that the exercise of power under the second proviso was not justified in this case, as there was no sufficient material to support the conclusion that holding a departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The order of dismissal was therefore set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with continuity of service and entitlement to consequential benefits, albeit with a restriction on back wages due to involvement in a criminal case (!) (!) (!) .
The case underscores the importance of recording clear, objective, and substantiated reasons when invoking the exception to the requirement of a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2), and emphasizes that such extraordinary powers should not be exercised arbitrarily or based on presumptions alone.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter ‘High Court’) disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the order of dismissal from service dated 18.07.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police (hereinafter ‘DCP’), New Delhi, the Order of Appellate Authority dated 30.07.2018 and the Order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (hereinafter ‘CAT’) in OA No. 744 of 2020.
2. The appellant was dismissed from service by the DCP, Delhi vide order dated 18.07.2017, in exercise of the power under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India without conducting departmental inquiry. The reason assigned for not resorting to the normal procedure prescribed under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter ‘1980 Rules’), was that Shri Govind Sharma, Assistant Commissioner of Police (hereinafter ‘ACP’) in the preliminary enquiry found that it would not be ‘reasonably practicable’ to conduct a regular departmental enquiry on account of reasonable belief of threat, intimidation and inducement to the victim and thereby creating the possibility of tampering of the vital evidence.
3. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide order dated 30.07.2018 accepting the reasons as indicated in the order of dismissal.
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed OA No. 744 of 2020 before CAT seeking quashment of his dismissal order and the order of the appellate authority. The CAT referred to the stand as taken in the counter affidavit of the State, relied upon some judgments and declined to interfere, dismissing the Original Application filed by the appellant vide order dated 29.11.2022. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309 of 2023 filed before the High Court of Delhi by the appellant was dismissed, accepting the same reasoning as taken by the DCP.
5. Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, referring to Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter ‘1978 Act’) contends that the power of punishment conferred upon the competent authority is not absolute; it is subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the 1980 Rules referred above. Referring to Rule 6, she contended that punishment mentioned at Serial Nos. (i) to (vii) of Rule 5 therein are deemed to be ‘major penalties’ and the competent authority can award the same after regular departmental inquiry. It is contended that as per Rule 14(2), a punishment of major penalty ought to be awarded by the appointing authority only after the regular departmental inquiry. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India contemplates that if a person is a member of a civil service of the Union or all India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State, he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. The first proviso contemplates that in case the penalty is required to be imposed on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, it would not be necessary to afford an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty. Clause (b) of second proviso states that where the authority empowered to remove a person is satisfied for some reason to be recorded in writing, to the effect that holding an inquiry is not ‘reasonably practicable’, the orders can be passed without adhering to the general principle contemplated by Article 311(2).
6. In reference to above, learned senior counsel submits that after registration of FIR No. 390 of 2017 on 28.06.2017, the appellant was taken into custody on 29.06.2017 and released on bail on 14.10.2017. In the meanwhile, the competent au
(1) Dismissal from service without conducting departmental inquiry – It is duty of disciplinary authority to record satisfaction how and in what manner holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicabl....
Disciplinary action under Article 311(2)(b) must be supported by robust evidence; reliance on mere presumptions about witness intimidation without conducting an inquiry contravenes natural justice pr....
The authority must provide objective justifications for the impracticability of holding an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and the dismissal of a regular member of the force is a drastic measure that....
Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insuf....
Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been reject....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
