The central legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must record relevant reasons in writing for dispensing with the departmental inquiry as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

D. K. DESHMUKH, J. :- By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 917 of 2005 dated 28-2-2007 and the order passed by the said Tribunal in Misc. Petition No. 73 of 2008 in Review Application No.6 of 2008 dated 3-7-2008. Original Application No. 917 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3-9-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner was in service of the Government of Maharashtra as Assistant Police Inspector. The Commissioner of Police by order dated 3-9-2005 dismissed the petitioner from service for misconduct. The order was made under Article 311(2)(b) by dispensing with the departmental enquiry. That order was challenged before the MAT. Apart from the grounds raised on merits in relation to the misconduct and the competence of the Commissioner to make the order of dismissal, it was contended that in the order dated 3-9-2005, the Commissioner has not recorded and disclosed reasons why it is not practicable to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The MAT dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Against that order, Review Application was filed. Because there was delay in filing that review application, a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay was taken out. The application for condonation of delay and the review application was disposed of by the MAT by order dated 3-7-2008. The MAT found that the petitioner has not disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It also held that even on merits, there is no case made out for review of the order. Therefore, in this situation, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he is guilty of misconduct and the order of the dismissal has been made by dispensing with holding of the departmental enquiry. The learned Counsel submits that as required by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, the Commissioner who has made the order has not recorded any reason why it is reasonably not practicable to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel submits, relying on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

i) M/s Ajantha Industries and others vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others, (1976) 1 SCC 1001; ii) Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 2 SCC (L and S) 135; iii) Chief Security Officer and others vs. Singasan Rabi Das, (1991) 1 SCC 729

that existence of reasons and recording of reasons for dispensing with departmental enquiry is mandatory. The learned Counsel submits that in the order, the Commissioner has not recorded any reason. The order of the MAT shows that the MAT went through the file that was maintained by the Commissioner and has referred to the notings in the file, but, even those notings do not show that any reasons have been recorded for dispensing with the departmental enquiry. The learned Counsel submits that therefore the order made by the Commissioner clearly violets the mandate of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that in the order dated 3-9-2005 reasons have been recorded for dispensing with the departmental enquiry and reasons have also been recorded on the file that has been maintained and which has been perused by the MAT According to the learned Counsel whether that reason is adequate or not is no justifiable and cannot be judged by this Court. The learned Counsel submits that the reasons exist and the dismissing authority was aware of those reasons enough for complying with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of Constitution India.

5. Article 311 (1) of the Constitution lays down that no person who member of a civil ser