Summary
The Court quashed the dismissal of a Delhi Police constable under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) without a departmental inquiry. The finding that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable rested on the presumption of the preliminary inquiry officer: none of the recorded witness statements showed any threat or intimidation, and the constable was in custody when dismissed. He was reinstated with 50% back wages, leaving the department free to hold a regular inquiry.
Issues
- Whether the disciplinary authority validly dispensed with a regular departmental inquiry under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) on the ground that holding it was not reasonably practicable.
- What is the scope of judicial review of such a decision, and did the Tribunal and High Court apply it correctly.
Provisions considered
- Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b), and Article 311(3), Constitution of IndiaFollowing Tulsiram Patel, dispensing with an inquiry requires the authority's satisfaction, recorded in writing and resting on objective material, that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The finality under Article 311(3) does not bar judicial review, and satisfaction based on mere presumption without material was held invalid. (¶¶ 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31, 35, 41)
- Sections 21 and 22, Delhi Police Act, 1978Section 21 empowers specified officers to impose punishments, including dismissal, subject to Article 311 and the rules; Section 22 requires the order and reasons to be recorded in accordance with the rules. Absent a valid invocation of Article 311(2)(b), this procedure had to be followed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 41)
- Rules 5 and 6 (with Rules 14 and 16), Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980Dismissal is a major punishment under Rules 5 and 6, which may be imposed only after a regular departmental inquiry conducted under the procedure in Rules 14 and 16. (¶¶ 11, 41)
Held
- Under Tulsiram Patel, 'not reasonably practicable' does not mean absolute impracticability but what a reasonable person would conclude in the prevailing situation. The disciplinary authority must not dispense with an inquiry lightly, arbitrarily, for ulterior motives or because the department's case is weak, and must record its reasons in writing. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- The finality given by Article 311(3) does not bind the courts. In judicial review the court does not sit in appeal, but puts itself in the authority's place, examines whether the reasons are relevant and based on material, and strikes down both the order dispensing with inquiry and the penalty if they are not. (¶¶ 18, 19, 41)
- The High Court erred in upholding the dismissal on the basis that the appellate authority had heard the appellant and the Tribunal had found the reasons justified; the real question was whether the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry were relevant and sustainable. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- On examining the preliminary inquiry report, the Court found that none of the statements of the complainant and police witnesses mentioned any trauma, threat or intimidation, and there was no material linking the appellant to criminals. The apprehension that witnesses would be intimidated was a mere presumption and could not justify dispensing with the inquiry. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 31)
- The appellant was in custody when he was dismissed. Without any instance of intimidation from custody, the authority's belief did not bring the case within clause (b). Applying Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, satisfaction must rest on objective material shown to the court and not on the authority's ipse dixit. (¶¶ 31, 32, 35)
- The Delhi Police's own circulars of 31.12.1998 and 11.09.2007 reflect Tulsiram Patel. They require cogent written reasons and material on file before invoking Article 311(2)(b), and record that dismissing officers involved in heinous offences without inquiry is improper where an inquiry can conveniently be held. (¶¶ 33, 34)
- The order dispensing with the inquiry was passed without application of mind and was arbitrary, so the dismissal and the orders affirming it could not stand. (¶¶ 31, 41)
Result
Appeal allowed; the orders of the CAT and High Court set aside and the dismissal order and appellate order quashed; appellant to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service and notional consequential benefits, with back wages restricted to 50% given his alleged involvement in a criminal case; the department remains free to hold a departmental inquiry in accordance with law; parties to bear their own costs.