Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Choudhary, AOR Mr. Ram Niwas Buri, Adv. Mr. Basudeb Biswas, Adv. Mr. Naresh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv. Mr. Kartik Solanki, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mili Baxi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Vikram, Adv.

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.