Article 311(2)(b) cannot be invoked based on presumptions of guilt or witness influence without tangible evidence of impracticability; requires material showing actual threats, not mere gravity of charges or ex parte preliminary enquiry findings.

By Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the pleadings available on record.

2. In the present O.A., the applicant has challenged an order dated 16.06.2023, whereby the applicant has been dismissed from service vide a common order dated 16.06.2023 by the Disciplinary Authority by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed appeal and the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 28.03.2025 had rejected the appeal vide common impugned order dated 28.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the relevant case FIR No. 77/23 dated 11.03.2023 registered with PS Anand Vihar U/S 384/323/34 IPC, the name of the applicant along with two others, namely ASI Chander Bhan and Constable Sandeep Kumar was involved. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the involvement in the said case FIR, the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the service of the present applicant and that of the said ASI Chander Bhan vide the common impugned order dated 16.06.2023 and the appeal of these two persons were rejected by the Appellate Authority vide common impugned order dated 28.03.2025.

5. Learned counsel further submits that as Disciplinary Authority in respect of co-accused Constable Sandeep Kumar was different, for his involvement in the said case FIR and on similar grounds, he was also dismissed from service by the concerned Disciplinary Authority by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and his appeal against such order of dismissal was also rejected.

6. He further submits that once the order(s) of Disciplinary Authority and of Appellate Authority in case of the said Constable Sandeep Kumar and in the case of ASI Chander Bhan were challenged before this Tribunal through OA No. 4883/2024 and OA No. 1540/2025 and such OAs filed by the said ASI Chander Bhan and Constable Sandeep Kumar have already been allowed by this Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal has attained finality inasmuch as the respondents have implemented the directions of the Tribunal, on the ground of parity, the present O.A. also deserves to be allowed.

7. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed counter reply seeking dismissal of the O.A. and the applicant has filed rejoinder, reiterating his claim and the grounds in support thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. However, he has fairly not disputed the factual matrix precisely recorded hereinabove.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and we have also perused the pleadings available on record. In O.A./1540/2025, filed by the co-accused/co-delinquent ASI Chander Bhan, this Tribunal has considered the impugned common orders at length in the light of the settled law on the subject and the orders impugned in the present O.A. are admittedly common in case of the present applicant and the applicant in O.A./1540/2025 (supra), for sake of clarity, the order/judgment dated 10.11.2025 in O.A./1540/2025 is reproduced as under:-

“1. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“8.1 To quash and set-aside the impugned