IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in certain situations, particularly in the context of security implications, the mandate of the provision of Article 311(2)(b) may be seen to have been complied with even if the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry are not expressly spelt out.

JUDGMENT

1. The marginal delay of about 12 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken on record.

2. The short grievance of the appellant, who has been dismissed from the Meghalaya police service by an order dated January 15, 2016, is that the precondition to dispensing with an inquiry in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution was not complied with in the appellant being summarily dismissed from service without being afforded an opportunity to deal with the charges levelled against him.

3. Article 311(2) of the Constitution is a safety-net that is provided to every person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State. It is constitutionally mandated that such a person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank only upon an inquiry in which hehas been informed of the charges levelled against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect thereof. The second proviso to the clause, inter alia, mandates that the clause, that is to say Article 311(2) of the Constitution, would not apply in certain situations:

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. -

(1)..

(2)....

Provided that....

Provided further that this clause shall not apply -

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3)...."

4. The appellant asserts that the three situations covered by the relevant proviso are distinct and do not overlap. According to the appellant, a relevant person may be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank following his conviction on a criminal charge, which implies the conviction by a criminal court. The second ground under which the clause would be inapplicable would be when the authority empowered to dismiss the relevant person is satisfied for some reason that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry envisaged in the substantive provision of the clause. However, there is a caveat to the second condition: in that, the reason as to why it is not practicable to hold such inquiry should be recorded by the relevant authority in writing. Thus, according to the appellant, the mandatory inquiry may not be dispensed with unless the reasons there for are recorded as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. In the absence of reasons, the appellant maintains, the relevant order would have no legs to stand on.

5. For the completeness of the discussion, the third limb of the second proviso has also to be covered. Such third limb provides for the satisfaction of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

6. Though the third limb of the relevant proviso does not come into play in the present case, the appellant has laboured on such aspect to emphasise that if it is the security of the State that is in question, it is only for the highest office of the President or the Governor to be satisfied in such regard; no satisfaction on such count even expressly mentioned by the disciplinary authority would allow the inquiry to be dispensed with. In other words, the appellant seeks to compartmentalise the three situations and suggest that the entirety of the conditions in one situation must be complied with and it would not do for a disciplinary authority to dispense with the inquiry on the ground that the interest of the securit