The Supreme Court has underscored that the extraordinary power to dismiss a government employee without conducting a departmental inquiry cannot be exercised on mere suspicion or administrative convenience. Authorities must demonstrate concrete reasons showing why such an inquiry is genuinely impracticable.
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by a Delhi Police constable who had been removed from service without any departmental proceedings. The Court ordered his reinstatement, concluding that the decision to bypass the inquiry lacked supporting material.
A bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar examined the legality of the dismissal order issued by a Deputy Commissioner of Police. The officer had invoked the exceptional provision under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, claiming that conducting a departmental inquiry would not be “reasonably practicable.” According to the disciplinary authority, the constable—who was facing a criminal case—might attempt to threaten or influence witnesses.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient.
It noted that the constable had been in custody when the dismissal order was passed. Despite this, the disciplinary authority failed to cite any specific incident suggesting that the accused had attempted to intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation from jail. The Court observed that assumptions about possible threats cannot substitute for factual material.
Under the constitutional framework, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India guarantees that members of civil services cannot be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without first being informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to defend themselves through an inquiry. An exception exists in clause (b) of the second proviso, which allows authorities to dispense with such an inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to conduct one. However, the Court clarified that this exception must be used sparingly and only when backed by clear, demonstrable circumstances.
In this case, the disciplinary authority relied solely on a speculative apprehension that witnesses might be threatened. The Supreme Court held that such a presumption, unsupported by evidence or specific instances, could not justify bypassing the constitutional safeguard of a departmental inquiry.
The Court also faulted the earlier decisions that had upheld the dismissal, including the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.
Setting aside those orders, the bench ruled that the constable’s removal from service was legally unsustainable. The Court concluded that invoking the exceptional power under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India requires demonstrable material showing that holding an inquiry is genuinely impossible—not merely inconvenient or feared to be difficult.
