The disciplinary authority must record, in writing, specific reasons why conducting a departmental enquiry is not reasonably practicable before dispensing with one. The gravity of the alleged misconduct alone is insufficient to justify bypassing the procedural requirement for an enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 14.10.2024, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon, Assam, towards imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules of 1964).

3. The petitioner, herein, was appointed as Armed Branch Constable, w.e.f. 23.02.2009 and was initially posted with the 16th A.P. (IR) Battalion Bormonipur, Morigaon. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the 25th Assam Police (ONGC) Battalion, Ligiripukhuri, Nazira and subsequently, was transferred and posted to the District Police Establishment, Bongaigaon in the month of June, 2022. While serving in such capacity, the petitioner came to be arrested on 15.09.2024, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 318/2024 under Sections 331(3)/75(2)/127(2) BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on his arrest in connection with the above noted criminal case, proceeded to issue an order dated 19.09.2024, placing the petitioner under suspension, w.e.f. 16.09.2024. The petitioner was enlarged on bail, vide order dated 16.11.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon. On being enlarged on bail, the petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby, in connection with the allegations involved in the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority drew satisfaction that it was impracticable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss him from service by invoking the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.10.2024, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had only considered the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner in the said order for the purpose of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, by dispensing the enquiry mandated to be carried out. He submits that the provisions of Clause-(b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, empowers a Disciplinary Authority to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank an employee, without holding an enquiry, by recording reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. He submits that provisions similar to the above exists in the provisions of Rule-10(ii) of the Rules of 1964. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, has not adduced any reason to highlight as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, herein. He submits that it is sine-qua-non that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Clause (b) to