Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute concerned the dismissal of a Sub-Inspector of Police serving in the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the Senior Superintendent of Police under the proviso (b) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which permits dispensing with a departmental inquiry where the authority records in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. The dismissal was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, which set it aside, leading to the present appeal by the Union Territory. Facts: The respondent, a Sub-Inspector, was dismissed on 5 July 1991 for gross misuse of official power, extortion, illegal detention, and torture of a complainant, Ranjit Singh, on the night of 3/4 July 1991. The order of dismissal recorded that witnesses could not come forward freely to depose against him in a regular departmental inquiry. The order was based on a report by the Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, which detailed that the respondent had arrested Ranjit Singh and two friends, tortured him, demanded Rs 60,000 as condition for release, and ultimately accepted Rs 20,000 before releasing him. The report stated that the respondent was a terror in the area, that no policeman or private person was likely to depose against him, and that in the presence of the Superintendent of Police he had intimidated the complainant who was visibly terrified. The three guests of Ranjit Singh left Chandigarh and said they would not testify due to fear. An appeal to the Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 30 September 1991. The Central Administrative Tribunal, following its earlier order in Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration, quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement with benefits, holding that the reason for dispensing with the inquiry was not sustainable. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the satisfaction recorded by the Senior Superintendent of Police under Article 311(2) proviso (b) that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry was valid, and whether the Tribunal was correct in reviewing that satisfaction despite clause (3) of Article 311 making the authority's decision final on that question. Arguments: The Union Territory contended that the recorded reason, supported by the detailed report, adequately justified dispensing with the inquiry. The respondent argued that a similar allegation against a superior officer, an Inspector, did not lead to invocation of proviso (b), suggesting discrimination. The Supreme Court examined the report and found the Inspector's allegation was entirely different and did not involve threats to the complainant in the presence of superior officers, thus rejecting the equal treatment argument. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court noted that clause (3) of Article 311 makes the authority's decision on reasonable practicability final, but that courts are not completely barred from examining the facts. Without deciding the full scope of judicial review, the Court focused on the facts: the report showed the respondent as a terror, that he intimidated the complainant in the very presence of the Superintendent of Police, and that witnesses were too frightened to depose. Given the situation in Punjab in 1991, the Court held that the Senior Superintendent was justified in forming the opinion that a departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The Tribunal had not even referred to clause (3). Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and upheld the dismissal order. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Reasonable Practicability - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) proviso (b), Article 311(3) - The Senior Superintendent of Police dismissed a sub-inspector without holding a departmental inquiry, recording that witnesses could not come forward freely due to fear of the officer; the report of the Superintendent of Police stated the officer was a terror and intimidated the complainant in his presence. The Supreme Court held that such material justified dispensing with the inquiry as not reasonably practicable and the Tribunal erred in setting aside the dismissal. Held that the order of dismissal was sustainable (Para references not available). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Dispensing Inquiry - Finality Clause - Constitution of India, Article 311(3) - The Supreme Court noted that Article 311(3) makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on reasonable practicability final but not completely immune from judicial review; however, on facts, the authority's satisfaction was supported by evidence of witness intimidation and the Punjab context in 1991. Held that the dispensation was justified without determining the full scope of judicial review (Para references not available). C) Service Law - Equal Treatment Argument - Article 311(2) proviso (b) - Constitution of India - Respondent argued that a superior officer (Inspector) facing similar allegations was not subjected to proviso (b); Court found the allegations different as no threat to complainant in the presence of superior officer. Held that the plea had no substance (Para references not available).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Senior Superintendent of Police was justified in dispensing with the departmental inquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry due to witness intimidation; and the scope of judicial review under Article 311(3).
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; the order of dismissal upheld; no costs awarded.
Law Points
- Article 311(2) proviso (b) dispensation of inquiry requires recorded satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable
- Article 311(3) makes such satisfaction final but subject to judicial review on facts
- witness intimidation and terror in area justify dispensing with departmental inquiry.
