Dispensing with inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) on mere suspicion or assumptions is legally unsustainable.

The applicant, an officer with the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service via an order dated 16.06.2023

The Disciplinary Authority invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry, citing the applicant’s involvement in FIR No. 77/23 registered under Sections 384/323/34 of the IPC regarding allegations of extortion and assault

The applicant’s statutory appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 28.03.2025

Two co-accused in the same FIR, ASI Chander Bhan and Constable Sandeep Kumar, had previously challenged similar dismissal orders before the Tribunal (O.A. No. 1540/2025 and O.A. No. 4883/2024 respectively), both of which were allowed and implemented by the respondents

The applicant sought parity with the co-accused

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry based on the gravity of the FIR

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement based on the principle of parity with co-delinquents whose dismissal orders were quashed in identical circumstances

The court primarily applied Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, which permits the dispensation of a departmental enquiry only when it is "not reasonably practicable" to hold one

It relied on the landmark precedent Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, which mandates that the disciplinary authority must record valid reasons for such dispensation based on material evidence rather than mere suspicion

The court further referenced Rule 15(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and Delhi Police Circulars dated 11.09.2007 and 13.05.2024, which prohibit the mechanical use of Article 311(2)(b) as a "short-cut" to avoid regular enquiries

The Tribunal found that the orders passed against the applicant were identical to those issued against the co-accused, ASI Chander Bhan and Constable Sandeep Kumar, which had already been set aside

Integrating the reasoning from the co-accused's case (O.A. No. 1540/2025), the Tribunal noted that the authorities failed to demonstrate why a departmental enquiry was not "reasonably practicable"

It observed that if a preliminary enquiry and a criminal trial were possible, a departmental enquiry could not be deemed impracticable

The Tribunal criticized the authorities for proceeding on the presumption of guilt based solely on an FIR and for using the "influential position" of a low-ranking officer as a vague justification for witness intimidation without any supporting material

Since the co-accused were granted relief and the facts were identical, the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to parity

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) was a misuse of power and lacked a legal basis

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within eight weeks

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the law

No costs were awarded