The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the power to dismiss a government servant from service without holding a departmental enquiry cannot be exercised on mere presumption that conducting such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. The Court added that the decision of the authority to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry before dismissing a government servant should be supported by some material.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by a Delhi Police constable who was dismissed from service without holding a departmental enquiry on the presumption of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) that conducting such an enquiry would not be reasonably practicable, as the appellant, facing a criminal trial, might threaten or intimidate witnesses.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Court restored the services of the appellant, holding that the High Court erred in upholding his dismissal. The Court observed that the power to dismiss a government servant without holding an enquiry under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution can be exercised only when it is not reasonably practicable to conduct such an enquiry, and the decision to dispense with it must be supported by relevant material.

Observing that the DCP’s report did not disclose any specific instance of threat or intimidation to justify dispensing with a departmental enquiry, the Court held that the appellant’s dismissal without conducting such an enquiry was illegal and unsustainable in law.

“In the case at hand after registration of the FIR when the appellant was in custody the order of dismissal was passed. He was released only thereafter. As such, without indicating any instance of intimidation, traumatising, threatening or persuading the complainant or the witness to turn hostile from inside the jail, the belief or presumption as recorded by the disciplinary authority is not sufficient to bring the present case within the exception to Article 311(2) by applying clause (b) of second proviso thereto,” the Court observed.

The Court quoted with approval the observation in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 362:
“The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.”

The bench explained the constitutional scheme under Article 311(2). It contemplates that no person holding a civil post shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, clause (b) of the second proviso permits dispensation of the enquiry if the authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicable.

The Court clarified that conducting an enquiry is the general rule; the exception under clause (b) must be exercised only on the basis of objective material demonstrating that the enquiry is not reasonably practicable. Mere apprehension or presumption without any specific instance of threat or intimidation is insufficient.

In the instant case, the appellant was serving as a constable in the Special Cell when an FIR for robbery and conspiracy was registered. While he was still in custody, the DCP invoked Article 311(2)(b) and dismissed him on the ground that witnesses might be threatened. No material showing any connection of the appellant or his associates with criminals, or any actual instance of intimidation from inside the jail, was placed on record.

The Court held that the preliminary enquiry report and the dismissal order contained only bald assertions and presumptions which could not form the basis of a reasonable apprehension sufficient to dispense with the regular disciplinary enquiry.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Delhi High Court and the dismissal order passed by the DCP. It directed forthwith reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and notional consequential benefits. Considering the pending criminal case, back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement were restricted to 50%. The Court clarified that reinstatement shall not preclude the authorities from initiating a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with law.

Case Title: Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2026 INSC 234