Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) - Proper if the Disciplinary Authority records its satisfaction in writing that holding a departmental inquiry is not reasonably practicable, and the conditions for invoking this exception are satisfied ["[KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND VS GENERAL MANAGER, ORDNANCE FACTORY - Madhya Pradesh"], ["SANJAY CHAWDA FC NO. 1744 SON OF SHRI YADRAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["Anand Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Manoj Kumar Katiyar VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Sasanka Saikia, S/o Late Kamakhya Prasad Saikia vs Gauhati University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Jalukbari, Guwahati, Assam - Gauhati"], ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"], ["Pankaj Kumar Gupta VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"], ["Amandeep Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Mohinder Singh VS Himachal Road Transport Corporation - Himachal Pradesh"], ["UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) vs BASHIR AHMAD BHAT AND ORS. - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Datta Choudhury - Gauhati"], ["Vasantha G. v. State - Gauhati"], ["Sachin Kumar S/o. Vedpal Singh VS Union of India, Through the Ministry of Railways, Having its Head office at : Room No. 239, Rail Bhawn, Raisina Road, CP, New Delhi - Bombay"]].
The constitutional safeguard under Article 311(2) applies only to civil servants who are members of a civil service of the Union, All-India Service, or a State civil service, or hold a civil post under the Union or a State. It does not extend to probationers, temporary employees, or those not covered by specific service rules ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"], ["[KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND VS GENERAL MANAGER, ORDNANCE FACTORY - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Sasanka Saikia, S/o Late Kamakhya Prasad Saikia vs Gauhati University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Jalukbari, Guwahati, Assam - Gauhati"], ["Manoj Kumar Katiyar VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]].
The Supreme Court has clarified that invoking Article 311(2)(b) requires the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, and this satisfaction must be recorded in writing, supported by independent material or reasons ["SANJAY CHAWDA FC NO. 1744 SON OF SHRI YADRAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"], ["Anand Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Sumit Baghel VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"]].
The exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) is an exception to the general rule of natural justice, and the reasons for dispensing with inquiry must be proper, justified, and recorded in writing, as laid down by the Supreme Court's judgments, notably in Tulsiram Patel and Union of India cases ["Sumit Baghel VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"], ["Anand Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Shri Jai Nath Wanchoo v. Union of India - Bombay"]].
Dismissal or removal without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) is proper when the conditions are met, including the satisfaction of the authority that inquiry is not reasonably practicable, and this is supported by the rules and constitutional provisions ["[KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND VS GENERAL MANAGER, ORDNANCE FACTORY - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Manoj Kumar Katiyar VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"], ["Anand Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"]].
Analysis and Conclusion:The legal consensus from the Supreme Court and various High Court judgments is that dismissing a civil servant under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution is proper provided that the Disciplinary Authority records its satisfaction in writing that holding a departmental inquiry is not reasonably practicable, and that the conditions for invoking this exception are satisfied. The protection under Article 311(2) is limited to civil servants who are members of specific services or hold civil posts, and does not extend to probationers or temporary employees. Proper adherence to procedural requirements and sound reasons are essential for such dismissals to be held valid. The cited judgments confirm that dismissals under this provision, when properly justified and documented, are constitutionally valid and upheld as proper ["[KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND VS GENERAL MANAGER, ORDNANCE FACTORY - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Shri Jai Nath Wanchoo v. Union of India - Bombay"].
References:- ["[KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND VS GENERAL MANAGER, ORDNANCE FACTORY - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Shri Jai Nath Wanchoo v. Union of India - Bombay"]- ["Manzoor Ahmad Bhat VS State Of J&K - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["Manoj Kumar Katiyar VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["SANJAY CHAWDA FC NO. 1744 SON OF SHRI YADRAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]- ["Anand Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["Sumit Baghel VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Hassandeen VS Union of India - Allahabad"]- ["Sasanka Saikia, S/o Late Kamakhya Prasad Saikia vs Gauhati University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Jalukbari, Guwahati, Assam - Gauhati"]- ["Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"]- ["Amandeep Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Mohinder Singh VS Himachal Road Transport Corporation - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) vs BASHIR AHMAD BHAT AND ORS. - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra Datta Choudhury - Gauhati"]- ["Vasantha G. v. State - Gauhati"]- ["Sachin Kumar S/o. Vedpal Singh VS Union of India, Through the Ministry of Railways, Having its Head office at : Room No. 239, Rail Bhawn, Raisina Road, CP, New Delhi - Bombay"]
Article 311 of the Indian Constitution provides vital safeguards for civil servants against arbitrary dismissal or removal from service. A common question arises: Dismissal from service under 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India held proper – under what conditions is such a dismissal legally valid? This provision allows authorities to dispense with a departmental inquiry in exceptional cases, but strict compliance is mandatory.
In this post, we explore the legal principles, key requirements, and judicial interpretations to clarify when such dismissals stand up in court. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Article 311(2) generally requires that no civil servant be dismissed or removed without an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, the second proviso under clause (b) creates an exception: where the authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.
The clause states that dismissal can occur if the disciplinary authority records in writing its reasons for this satisfaction. Without this, the order is typically vulnerable to challenge. Courts emphasize that this power is exceptional and must prevent misuse against public servants. Union of India (UOI) VS M. M. Sharma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 333
Key elements include:- Impracticability: Must be genuine, based on objective facts like witness intimidation or security risks.- Recorded Reasons: Explicitly stated in writing contemporaneously with the order.- Objective Basis: Not mere assertions; supported by material on record. Hari Niwas Gupta VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1249
Dismissals under Article 311(2)(b) are generally held illegal if passed without proper inquiry or unrecorded reasons. However, they can be deemed proper if:- Inquiry is not reasonably practicable.- Specific reasons are recorded in writing.- Procedure is followed meticulously.
Courts have quashed orders lacking these, but upheld those with proper documentation. For instance, the authority must demonstrate why inquiry couldn't proceed, such as fear among witnesses. Union of India (UOI) VS M. M. Sharma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 333
The key requirement for invoking the exception under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is that the authority must record its satisfaction in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Union of India (UOI) VS M. M. Sharma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 333
The cornerstone is written reasons. Mere oral satisfaction or post-facto justification fails. High Courts and the Supreme Court insist on contemporaneous recording to curb arbitrariness.
In one case, courts stressed: for dispensing with departmental inquiry under clause (b), the authority must explicitly record its reasons in writing and demonstrate that an inquiry could not be conducted due to the facts and circumstances of the case.Hari Niwas Gupta VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1249
Failure here renders the order liable to be quashed.
Reasons must be specific and objective. Supreme Court rulings clarify that the authority's satisfaction needs evidential support. Presumptions or vague claims don't suffice. Union of India (UOI) VS M. M. Sharma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 333
Certain cases illustrate proper invocation:- Police Constable Case: A constable involved in kidnapping and ransom was dismissed without inquiry. Witnesses turned hostile due to fear, and he was caught red-handed. The court upheld it, noting no material showed practicability of inquiry. Ct Mukesh Kumar Yadav VS Gnct of Delhi - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4100
The Court noted the serious nature of the offence... and the fact that the witnesses had turned hostile in the criminal trial. Ct Mukesh Kumar Yadav VS Gnct of Delhi - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4100
When properly done, courts defer to the authority's satisfaction if backed by facts. Jagannath Prasad VS State of U. P. - 1954 0 Supreme(All) 73
Conversely, lapses lead to invalidation:
Links with Criminals: A police officer dismissed for alleged ties to criminals and illegal gratification. The order simply mentioned links without cogent material or valid impracticability reasons. Court quashed it, stressing: the power to dispense with an inquiry is an exception and must be based on valid reasons, not arbitrary or ulterior motives.Balkar Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 2004
Narcotics Supply Allegation: A warder dismissed post-FIR for supplying drugs to inmates without recorded reasons or inquiry. Violated natural justice; set aside with liberty for fresh inquiry. Warder Ram Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 1489
The dismissal without conducting an inquiry and without recording reasons for not doing so was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Warder Ram Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 1489
Police Officer Post-Acquittal: Even after acquittal on technical grounds (not lack of evidence), dismissal needed proper procedure. Courts clarified acquittal doesn't bar departmental action unless on merits. GOVT. OF N. C. T. DELHI VS BHISHAM KUMAR - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4334
These highlight that extraordinary circumstances are required, with reasons demonstrating impracticability. Warder Ram Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 1489
Article 311(1) ensures dismissal only by appointing authority or equivalent. Subordinate actions may be invalid unless rules permit delegation. In service rules like Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – Rule 55, charge-sheets need not always come from the top authority if delegated properly. High Courts shouldn't quash show-cause notices lightly under Article 226. State of Jharkhand VS Rukma Kesh Mishra - 2025 4 Supreme 66
Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet – In some very rare and exceptional cases High Court can quash... State of Jharkhand VS Rukma Kesh Mishra - 2025 4 Supreme 66
Dismissals under 311(2)(c) (post-conviction) differ but face review limits. State of West Bengal VS Confederation of State Government Employees - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 678
For employers/government bodies:- Assess impracticability objectively (e.g., witness safety in criminal nexus cases).- Document reasons immediately.- Support with inquiry reports or evidence.
For employees:- Challenge via writs if reasons absent/arbitrary.- Tribunals/High Courts scrutinize closely.
Courts balance efficiency with fairness, upholding valid exceptions while striking down abuses.
In summary, while the provision enables swift action in tough cases, its misuse invites judicial intervention. Public servants enjoy constitutional protection, but grave misconduct justifies exceptions when properly invoked. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.
References:1. Union of India (UOI) VS M. M. Sharma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 333: Reasons necessity under 311(2)(b).2. Hari Niwas Gupta VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1249: Specific reasons requirement.3. Jagannath Prasad VS State of U. P. - 1954 0 Supreme(All) 73: Valid procedure upholding.4. State of Jharkhand VS Rukma Kesh Mishra - 2025 4 Supreme 66, State of West Bengal VS Confederation of State Government Employees - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 678, Ct Mukesh Kumar Yadav VS Gnct of Delhi - 2017 Supreme(Del) 4100, GOVT. OF N. C. T. DELHI VS BHISHAM KUMAR - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4334, Balkar Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 2004, Warder Ram Singh VS State of Punjab - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 1489: Supporting cases.
#Article311, #ServiceDismissal, #IndianConstitution
What the Supreme Court held was that if in a case, to which Article 311 (2) is attracted, there is a statute or the rules made thereunder defining the scope and content of "reasonable opportunity" envisaged by Article 311 (2) of the constitution, then for compliance of ^tide 311 (2) it is essential that ... The protection given by article 311 of the Constitution is not available to the petitioner as he was not a me....
High Court tinder Art.226 of the Constitution if Art.311 (2) did not apply. ... S.96 - B affirmed the position that every person in the civil service of the Crown in India held office during his Majesty's pleasure subject to the provisions of the said Act and of the rules made thereunder. ... Sub-section (2) reproduced the restriction introduced by S.96 - B (1) of the 1919 Act. ... Art.311 in express terms applies ....
clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 126 of the Constitution of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. ... The competent authority as such by invoking power under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Constitution of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, dismissed the appellant from service. ... Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of Indi....
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is a member of the 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 shall be dismissed or ... State of U.P. 1993 LCD 70 has considered the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and has held as under :- 2....
But certainly, the constitutional mandate of Article 311(2)(b) required the respondents to record their satisfaction in writing as to why holding of inquiry was not reasonably practicable. This Court also finds that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. ... But certainly, the constitutional mandate of Article 311(2)(b) required the respondents to record their satisfaction in writing as to why holding of inquir....
Although, Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of the India provides the requirement of principles of natural justice in respect of the civil servant if punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is to be imposed. ... Union of India] has observed as under :-- “Arts.311(2) second proviso, cl. ... to go through the relevant provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, ....
I find it apt to reproduce the mandate of Constitution contained in Article 311 (2) (b):— “311. ... The Apex Court in such situation held that the order of dismissal to be abrupt, unreasoned and completely contrary to the import of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution. 27. ... It is, therefore, in accordance with the constitutional scheme that service rules excluding natural justice have to be r....
Article 311(1) provides that no person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or of an All-India Service or Civil Service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. ... Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State....
(1991) 1 SCC 362 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the respondent authority has to be fortified by any independent material to justify the dispensing with of the inquiry envisaged by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. ... Article 311(2)(b) as well as Article 311(3) of the Constitution of India, as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel (supra) as well as in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra)....
This, according to the judgment is the safeguard from an action by virtue of proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, Article 311(2) is reproduced hereinunder : "(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after ... Union of India, 1985 (2) SCR 358, Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to power under Clause (a) of second proviso of Article 311(2)of the Constitutio....
This circular was impugned in the Supreme Court, which by an interim order, restrained its implementation. Subsequently, the appellants were dismissed from service by orders passed under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India. The appellants filed writ petitions, which were transferred to and ultimately dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and they preferred an appeal against the Tribunal's decision. The question that arose in appeal was whether an order passed under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review or not.
His appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority, taking note of the fact that a FIR u/s 377/34 IPC had been registered against him. Consequently, by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the appellant was dismissed from service. He took into consideration the preliminary inquiry report prepared by the Deputy Superintendant of Police and, on that basis, concluded that there was no need to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the appellant. He was of the view that the appellant was guilty of the gravest acts of....
We may notice that the respondent has since expired leaving behind his wife and children. After the registration of the FIR, the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 21st March, 1996 under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.05.2014 dispensing with the departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Simply it has been mentioned that the petitioner is having links with known criminals and has been receiving illegal gratification for extending favour to the well known narcotic smugglers.
On lodging of the said FIR, he was also suspended and thereafter he was ultimately dismissed from service. Dismissal removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State:- While dismissing the petitioner from service, the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India have been attracted which are reproduced as under:-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
