Generalized apprehensions of witness intimidation and administrative inconvenience do not justify dispensing with an Article 311(2)(b) inquiry.

The applicant, a CBI Sub-Inspector, was accused of disclosing confidential information and documents concerning a preliminary enquiry and a regular case to an advocate, allegedly in exchange for an iPhone. A separate criminal case was registered on 31 August 2021, and the applicant was arrested on 1 September 2021.

On 3 September 2021, the competent authority dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 11 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961, dispensing with a departmental inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one. The applicant challenged the dismissal before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the competent authority validly invoked Article 311(2)(b) by finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry against the applicant

2. Whether the recorded concerns—including possible witness influence, risks to the investigation, and administrative difficulties—provided a sufficient factual basis to dispense with the inquiry

Article 311(2) of the Constitution protects a government servant from dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without an inquiry, subject to the exceptions in its second proviso. Under clause (b), an inquiry may be dispensed with only where the competent authority, on relevant material and circumstances, is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold one; the seriousness of the allegations, inconvenience, or anticipated delay alone is insufficient.

Rule 11 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961, was cited as the applicable disciplinary provision.

The Tribunal considered Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, and Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, among other authorities, and relied particularly on Neeraj Agarwal v. Secretary, DoPT & Ors. for the principle that a general apprehension of witness intimidation, unsupported by an adequate factual foundation, does not establish impracticability.

Although the respondents cited the sensitivity of the investigation, possible witness intimidation, difficulty securing witnesses, and the consequences of retaining the applicant in service, the Tribunal found no specific evidence that any witness had been threatened or would not participate, nor sufficient material showing that safeguards could not protect witnesses or confidential information.

The file note showed that the conclusion that an inquiry was infeasible was reached within three days of the criminal case’s registration and rested on the prediction that the applicant might hamper the investigation. The Tribunal held that this apprehension, without supporting circumstances, did not meet Article 311(2)(b)’s threshold.

Suspension-related concerns, subsistence allowance, and difficulty assigning duties addressed the desirability of retaining the applicant, not the practicability of holding an inquiry.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with continuity of service and to decide his entitlement to back wages and other monetary benefits by a reasoned order, preferably within three months. The respondents remained free to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law; the Tribunal expressed no view on the merits of the allegations.