Delinquent's abscondence justifies dispensing with departmental enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) as being not reasonably practicable.

The petitioner, a Constable officiating as a Head Constable in the salary branch of the Superintendent of Police (SP) office, Shivpuri, was accused of embezzling public funds

An investigation by the District Pension Officer revealed that salaries belonging to other employees were being credited to the bank account of the petitioner’s wife

A preliminary enquiry confirmed a defalcation of Rs. 4,43,275/-

Following the registration of a criminal case under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner absconded

A show-cause notice was issued on 14/09/2023 but could not be served personally; it was instead affixed to his residence

On 21/09/2023, the respondent dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, dispensing with a formal departmental enquiry on the grounds that it was not "practically possible" due to the petitioner’s absconsion

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed on 22/05/2024

1. Whether the dismissal of a permanent government servant without conducting a full departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules is legally sustainable when the authority invokes Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioner's absconsion and the nature of the embezzlement allegations justified the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction that holding an enquiry was not "reasonably practicable"

Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, which provides an exception to the requirement of a departmental enquiry if the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing, that such an enquiry is not "reasonably practicable"

Rule 19(ii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which allows for a special procedure dispensing with the standard enquiry under Rule 14

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021), which established that the principles of natural justice are not a "straitjacket formula" and that their application depends on the facts of each case, particularly whether any real prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee

The court observed that the disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 5) had recorded a valid satisfaction for dispensing with the enquiry because the petitioner was absconding with his family following the registration of a serious criminal case, making the service of notice and the conduct of an enquiry impossible at that time

The court noted that the allegations involved the siphoning of public money into the petitioner's wife's account—a fact the petitioner failed to explain or deny in the preliminary enquiry, the departmental appeal, or even the present writ petition

Applying the "prejudice" test from Sudhir Kumar Singh, the court reasoned that since the facts regarding the transactions were essentially indisputable and the petitioner offered no defense on the merits, no purpose would be served by a formal enquiry

The court concluded that natural justice is not violated when an enquiry is waived due to the delinquent's own conduct of evading the process

It ruled that the respondent was justified in invoking Article 311(2)(b) as the petitioner’s absconsion rendered a departmental enquiry not reasonably practicable

Consequently, the High Court upheld the dismissal order dated 21/09/2023 and the appellate order dated 22/05/2024, and the writ petition was dismissed