SC Quashes Dismissal Without Enquiry Under Article 311(2)(b)

Case Details: Manohar Lal vs. Commissioner of Police [2026] 184 taxmann.com 276 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
• Ms Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ram Niwas Buri, Basudeb Biswas, Naresh Sharma, Ms Sreepriya K., Kartik Solanki, Advs. & Sandeep Choudhary, AOR for the Appellant.
• Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mili Baxi, Rajat Nair, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Aaditya Vikram, Advs. & Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a police constable, was dismissed from the service by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India without holding a departmental enquiry.

The DCP recorded satisfaction that holding a departmental enquiry would create fear in the mind of the complainant and witnesses and cause further trauma to the victim, and therefore invoked Article 311(2)(b) to dismiss the appellant from service with immediate effect.

The appellant’s departmental appeal was dismissed by the Special Commissioner of Police. The appellant’s challenge to dismissal was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that, in the statements of witnesses, no incident of traumatising the complainant and witnesses had been recorded. Therefore, nothing was available on record to accept the plea of threatening, intimidation, or inducement to any witness to turn hostile.

Further, it was noted that the satisfaction as recorded must be objective satisfaction on the basis of material brought on record, which ordinarily a disciplinary authority may take as a prudent person.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of any material, merely a belief or a presumption is not sufficient to record such a finding and to deviate from normal procedure.

The Supreme Court held that since disciplinary authority proceeded on presumption of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) who conducted preliminary enquiry without any material and concluded that holding a regular enquiry was not reasonably practicable, the order passed by the disciplinary authority dispensing with enquiry as required was without application of mind and could not be sustained.

Therefore, the order dispensing with the regular procedure of inquiry was arbitrary, and consequently, the order of dismissal of the appellant was liable to be quashed and the orders of the CAT and the High Court affirming the said dismissal order stood set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of Division Bench High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1309 of 2023 , dated 02.02.2023 (para 41) set aside
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel 1985 taxmann.com 1415 (SC)/(1985) 3 SCC 398 (para 16)
• Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 362 (para 32) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel 1985 taxmann.com 1415 (SC) (para 6)
• Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 362 (para 6), Ex-Constable Chhote Lal v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 196 (para 6)
• Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2005) 11 SCC 525 (para 6)
• Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 581 (para 6)
• State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh (2007) 15 SCC 217 (para 6)
• Reena Rani v. State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC 215 (para 6)
• Risal Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 244 (para 6).