The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the extraordinary power to dismiss a government servant without a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot be invoked on speculative grounds. The judgment underscores that mere apprehension of witness intimidation, without corroborating material, renders such dismissal arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Constable Manohar Lal, was dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), New Delhi, on 18.07.2017 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, bypassing the mandatory departmental inquiry. The dismissal followed registration of FIR No. 390/2017 under Sections 380, 412, 457, and 392 IPC, alleging his involvement in the robbery of sandalwood from a private godown. The DCP relied on a preliminary inquiry report by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Govind Sharma, which asserted that the complainant and witnesses were likely to be intimidated or induced to turn hostile due to the appellant’s alleged association with criminals.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple forums:
- 28.06.2017: FIR registered against the appellant
- 29.06.2017: Appellant arrested and placed in custody
- 18.07.2017: DCP issued dismissal order under Article 311(2)(b), citing risk of witness tampering
- 30.07.2018: Special Commissioner of Police upheld the dismissal
- 29.11.2022: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the appellant’s OA No. 744/2020, relying on the DCP’s reasoning
- 02.02.2023: Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming CAT’s decision
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the dismissal order, reinstatement with full benefits, and declaration that the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) was illegal due to absence of material evidence supporting the claim of non-practicability of inquiry.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction that holding a departmental inquiry was not ‘reasonably practicable’ under Article 311(2)(b) could be based on unsubstantiated presumption, or whether it required objective, recorded material demonstrating actual threat or intimidation to witnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned senior counsel V. Mohana contended that the dismissal order violated Article 311(2) and Rule 6 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which classify dismissal as a major penalty requiring a regular departmental inquiry. She argued that the ACP’s preliminary report contained no witness statements corroborating claims of intimidation. The appellant was in custody during the entire period leading to dismissal, making any threat to witnesses implausible. Reliance was placed on Tulsiram Patel, Jaswant Singh, and Ex. Const. Chhote Lal to establish that subjective belief without material basis is legally insufficient.
For the Respondent
The Additional Solicitor General, Brijender Chahar, defended the dismissal by citing the ACP’s preliminary inquiry report, which alleged the appellant’s association with hard-core criminals and potential for witness tampering. He argued that the CAT and High Court had correctly accepted the administrative assessment of risk, and that judicial review should not substitute the disciplinary authority’s on-ground judgment. He contended that the nature of the offense - robbery by a police officer - justified exceptional action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of Article 311(2)(b) and the landmark judgment in Tulsiram Patel v. Union of India, emphasizing that the phrase ‘not reasonably practicable’ does not mean ‘impracticable’ but requires a reasonable man’s assessment of the prevailing situation. The Court held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons based on objective material, not conjecture.
"A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail."
The Court examined the preliminary inquiry report and found that none of the witnesses - complainant Maniram, SI Hardeep Singh, HC Kuldeep Singh, or Constable Devender - had stated that they feared the appellant or his associates. The ACP’s conclusion that the appellant had ‘close association with criminals’ was unsupported by any evidence. The Court noted that the appellant was in custody when the dismissal order was passed, rendering the alleged threat to witnesses implausible.
The Court further relied on Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, where it held that the satisfaction under Article 311(2)(b) must be fortified by independent material. The Delhi Police’s own 1998 and 2007 circulars, which explicitly warn against invoking Article 311(2)(b) on assumptions, were cited to reinforce that the department itself recognizes the stringent threshold for bypassing inquiry.
The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the appellate authority had ‘heard’ the appellant, clarifying that post-facto hearing by an appellate body cannot cure the initial violation of Article 311(2). The failure to record objective grounds for dispensing with inquiry rendered the dismissal arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court held that Article 311(2)(b) cannot be invoked on presumption or unsubstantiated belief. The dismissal order was quashed, and the appellant was reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages, given his involvement in a criminal case. The State retains the right to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Objective Material Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must insist that any order invoking Article 311(2)(b) be supported by documented, verifiable evidence - not vague assertions
- Mere reference to a preliminary inquiry report without quoting specific witness statements or threat indicators is legally inadequate
- If no witness has expressed fear or been subjected to intimidation, the ‘reasonably practicable’ threshold is not met
Custody Undermines Threat Claims
- When the accused is in custody, claims of witness intimidation by the accused are inherently implausible unless proven otherwise
- Disciplinary authorities must explain how a detained officer could orchestrate threats to witnesses
- Failure to address this contradiction renders the order vulnerable to judicial review
Circulars and Departmental Guidelines Are Binding
-
Internal circulars issued by departments (e.g., Delhi Police’s 1998 and 2007 circulars) reflect the accepted legal standard and may be cited in court
-
Authorities who ignore their own guidelines risk having orders set aside as arbitrary
-
Legal advisors should routinely check departmental circulars before advising on disciplinary action
-
Disciplinary authorities must record reasons with specificity: ‘witnesses may be intimidated’ is insufficient; ‘Witness X stated on 15.06.2017 that accused’s brother threatened to kill him if he testified’ is required
-
Courts will not defer to administrative discretion where the record is devoid of material support
-
Reinstatement with partial back wages remains a likely remedy where misconduct is alleged but procedural violation is established
