Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative Member
Mohd. Shakir – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No. 644/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin Chauhan
For the Respondents: Gyanendra Singh

Invoking Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with a departmental enquiry requires objective, evidence-based satisfaction that a fair enquiry is not reasonably practicable. Dismissal based on mere gravity of charges, suspicion of witness intimidation, or preliminary enquiry findings without demonstrating the practical impossibility of holding a regular enquiry is constitutionally invalid.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2)(b) - Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Dismissal from service - Invocation of power to dispense with departmental enquiry - Requirement of recording cogent reasons for impracticability - Held, pre-condition for invoking Article 311(2)(b) is objective satisfaction that holding a regular enquiry is not reasonably practicable - Mere gravity of allegations, reliance on preliminary enquiry, or generalized assumptions of witness intimidation are insufficient - If a preliminary enquiry is possible, a regular departmental enquiry is also practicable - Action based on suspicion and surmises violates constitutional safeguards and principles of natural justice. (Paras 13, 15, 33, 35, 36, 40)

(B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Appellate Authority - Duty to pass speaking and reasoned orders - Rejection of statutory appeal in a mechanical manner without addressing specific grounds or binding precedents constitutes non-application of mind. (Paras 19, 30, 42)

Facts of the case:
An official was dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution for alleged misconduct including possession of a stolen vehicle and unauthorized absence. The disciplinary authority dispensed with a regular departmental enquiry citing the gravity of allegations and the likelihood of witnesses being intimidated. The appellate authority rejected the statutory appeal, upholding the dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to establish that holding a regular enquiry was not reasonably practicable. The reasons recorded were based on conjectures and presumptions rather than material evidence. The court held that departmental enquiry is the rule and dispensing with it is an exception that must be strictly justified.

Issues: Whether the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry was legally justified given the facts and whether the appellate authority followed the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of Article 311(2)(b) as a short-cut to remove an employee without conduct of a departmental enquiry is invalid where the authority has failed to demonstrate through objective material that conducting an enquiry was not reasonably practicable. The gravity of the offence does not mitigate the obligation to adhere to due process.

Result: Order of dismissal and appellate order set aside; applicant reinstated with all consequential benefits; liberty granted to initiate departmental proceedings in accordance with law.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving the applicant's alleged misconduct. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. applicant's contentions regarding the unlawful invocation of article 311(2)(b). (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. respondents' arguments justifying the dismissal order and reliance on article 311(2)(b). (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. court's analysis on the invalidity of dispensing with regular departmental enquiries based on assumptions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. final order of reinstatement and requirement for formal departmental process. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):

1. By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“8.1 To quash and set aside an order dated 13.7.2023 whereby the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is inflicted upon the applicant, order dated 27.12.2023, whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowance.

And/or

Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

Facts in a Nutshell:-

3. The brief factual matrix of the case as gleaned from the records is that the applicant, HC (Exe.) Mohd. Shakir, No. 1211/E (PIS No. 28110238), was posted at Police Station Shakarpur and was performing general duties such as sentry duty and picket duty. On 14.06.2023, information was received from Police Station Seemapuri that the applicant, while posted at PS Shakarpur, was found using a motorcycle which had been reported stolen from Police Station Mandawali vide FIR No. 6139/23 dated 25.02.2023. The Station House Officer, PS Shakarpur, was accordingly requested to verify the said information.

4. Upon verification of records, it was found that the applicant was on leave and was required to report back for duty on 13.06.2023. However, he failed to report back and was marked absent vide DD No. 64 dated 13.06.2023 of PS Shakarpur. Thereafter, the applicant was called and a detailed enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, the applicant disclosed that he was acquainted with one Mr. Deepak, stated to be working with Delhi Civil Defence in the PS Kalyanpuri area. The applicant stated that about 15–20 days prior thereto, Mr. Deepak had informed him about a motorcycle parked behind PS Kalyanpuri, which was allegedly stolen. It was further stated that the applicant took the key of the said motorcycle, got a forged number plate prepared, replaced the original number plate and started using the said motorcycle.

5. Efforts were made to verify the facts from the said Deepak; however, he was found to be residing in Odisha. On being contacted telephonically, Deepak denied having handed over any stolen motorcycle to the applicant. It also emerged during the enquiry that the applicant had earlier been verbally warned for not performing his duties in a professional manner. Further, the owner/manager of an OYO hotel falling within the jurisdiction of PS Mandawali informed the authorities that the applicant had stayed in the hotel for over one month without paying the rent and that a complaint in this regard had already been lodged.

6. A preliminary enquiry was thereafter conducted through ACP/P.G. Cell, East District. The preliminary enquiry revealed that the applicant was found using the stolen motorcycle and that he was on leave during the period when the motorcycle was stolen. During the enquiry, the applicant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative MemberMohd. Shakir – AppellantVersusGovt. of NCT of Delhi – RespondentO.A. No. 644/2024

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative Member
Mohd. Shakir – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No. 644/2024