Unsubstantiated apprehensions of witness intimidation cannot justify dispensing with inquiry under Article 311(2)(b).

The applicant, a CBI Head Constable, was dismissed on 5 October 2021 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, read with Rule 11 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961, following allegations of inappropriate physical contact with a female outsourced employee.

The authority dispensed with a departmental inquiry, recording that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one.

An FIR was registered, the applicant was arrested, and a charge-sheet was later filed. The applicant challenged the dismissal and related orders; he was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case.

The Tribunal confined its consideration to the legality of dispensing with the inquiry, not the truth of the allegations or the applicant’s criminal liability.

1. Whether the competent authority had a sufficient and rational basis to conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry and therefore to invoke Article 311(2)(b).

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential relief following the setting aside of the dismissal order.

Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b), permits dispensing with an inquiry only where the competent authority is satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing, that holding one is not reasonably practicable; that satisfaction is subject to judicial review and must rest on relevant material rationally supporting the conclusion.

Rule 11 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate Ranks) (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961, was applied alongside that constitutional provision.

Relying on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Tribunal treated the recorded reasons as subject to review for relevance and rational basis; Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police supported the requirement that the exception not rest on unsupported apprehension.

The Tribunal also referred to Neeraj Agarwal v. Secretary, DoPT for the principle that a general fear of witness intimidation, without adequate factual support, may not justify dispensing with an inquiry.

The Tribunal accepted that the allegations were serious and that the respondents had a duty to protect the complainant and maintain a safe workplace.

But seriousness, the complainant’s outsourced status, the possibility she might be influenced, the criminal investigation and charge-sheet, concerns about staff morale, and the applicant’s alleged conduct did not, without a sufficiently specific factual foundation, establish that an inquiry was impracticable.

The respondents had not shown why an inquiry could not be conducted with appropriate safeguards.

The applicant’s prior punishment and alleged unauthorised absence likewise did not establish the required constitutional condition.

The later acquittal was not determinative; the decision had to be assessed by reference to the circumstances at the time of dismissal.

It partly allowed the application and quashed the dismissal order dated 5 October 2021 and consequential office order dated 8 October 2021.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with continuity of service; the competent authority was to decide back wages and other monetary benefits by a reasoned order, preferably within three months.

The accommodation-vacation order was set aside to the extent it rested on the dismissal, with the applicant’s entitlement to accommodation to be considered under the applicable rules.

The respondents remained at liberty to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law; no view was expressed on the merits of the allegations.