Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) is invalid without recording specific reasons why holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable.

The petitioner, an Armed Branch Constable in the Assam Police, was arrested on September 15, 2024, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 318/2024 under Sections 331(3)/75(2)/127(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

Following his arrest, he was placed under suspension on September 19, 2024.

On October 14, 2024, the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon (Disciplinary Authority), issued an order dismissing the petitioner from service without holding a departmental inquiry.

The authority invoked Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, asserting that the petitioner's alleged misconduct was so grave that his continuance in service was unacceptable.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal, arguing that the authority failed to record reasons as to why holding an inquiry was not "reasonably practicable".

Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, which permits dismissal without inquiry where the authority is satisfied for reasons recorded in writing that it is not "reasonably practicable" to hold such inquiry.

Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which mirrors the constitutional provision regarding dispensing with an inquiry in certain circumstances.

The precedent of Madhab Gogoi v. State of Assam (2020), which established that the recording of satisfaction regarding the impracticability of an inquiry is a mandatory condition precedent for bypassing the natural justice requirements of Article 311(2).

The Court found that the impugned dismissal order dated October 14, 2024, focused entirely on the gravity of the allegations (sexual assault of a minor) and the negative impact on the police force's image.

The Disciplinary Authority failed to adduce any evidence or reason explaining why it was not "reasonably practicable" to conduct a standard inquiry.

The Court noted that the authority had misinterpreted the Madhab Gogoi judgment, wrongly assuming that the seriousness of the offence replaced the need for recording reasons for dispensing with an inquiry.

The Court emphasized that for the constitutional exception under Article 311(2)(b) to apply, the impossibility or impracticability of the inquiry must be substantiated in the order or contemporaneous records, which was absent in this case.

The Court set aside the dismissal order dated October 14, 2024, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner, while deeming him to remain under suspension with entitlement to subsistence allowance; and granted the State liberty to initiate fresh proceedings or properly invoke the second proviso to Article 311(2) within one month.