REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 234 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13860 OF 2024 MANOHAR LAL …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1) The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter ‘High Court’) disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the order of dismissal from service dated 18.07.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police (hereinafter ‘DCP’), New Delhi, the Signature Not Verified Order of Appellate Authority dated 30.07.2018 and the Order dated NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.03.12 Reason:

29.11.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (hereinafter ‘CAT’) in OA No. 744 of 2020.

2) The appellant was dismissed from service by the DCP, Delhi vide order dated 18.07.2017, in exercise of the power under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India without conducting departmental inquiry. The reason assigned for not resorting to the normal procedure prescribed under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter ‘1980 Rules’), was that Shri Govind Sharma, Assistant Commissioner of Police (hereinafter ‘ACP’) in the preliminary enquiry found that it would not be ‘reasonably practicable’ to conduct a regular departmental enquiry on account of reasonable belief of threat, intimidation and inducement to the victim and thereby creating the possibility of tampering of the vital evidence.

3) The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide order dated 30.07.2018 accepting the reasons as indicated in the order of dismissal.

4) Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed OA No. 744 of 2020 before CAT seeking quashment of his dismissal order and the order of the appellate authority. The CAT referred to the stand as taken in the counter affidavit of the State, relied upon some judgments and declined to interfere, dismissing the Original Application filed by the appellant vide order dated 29.11.2022. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309 of 2023 filed before the High Court of Delhi by the appellant was dismissed, accepting the same reasoning as taken by the DCP.

5) Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, referring to Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter ‘1978 Act’) contends that the power of punishment conferred upon the competent authority is not absolute; it is subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the 1980 Rules referred above. Referring to Rule 6, she contended that punishment mentioned at Serial Nos. (i) to (vii) of Rule 5 therein are deemed to be ‘major penalties’ and the competent authority can award the same after regular departmental inquiry. It is contended that as per Rule 14(2), a punishment of major penalty ought to be awarded by the appointing authority only after the regular departmental inquiry. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India contemplates that if a person is a member of a civil service of the Union or all India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State, he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. The first proviso contemplates that in case the penalty is required to be imposed on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, it would not be necessary to afford an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty. Clause (b) of second proviso states that where the authority empowered to remove a person is satisfied for some reason to be recorded in writing, to the effect that holding an inquiry is not ‘reasonably practicable’, the orders can be passed without adhering to the general principle contemplated b