Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Prajyot Ramchandra Kandolkar, a police constable in Goa, was dismissed from service by an order dated 5.8.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with relevant Service Rules. The dismissal was without holding a regular departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The background of the dispute is that the petitioner was alleged to have committed misconduct, but instead of conducting a full-fledged enquiry, the disciplinary authority dispensed with the enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one. The only reasons recorded in the impugned order were that the petitioner, being a member of the police force, would overawe the witnesses and that nobody would dare to depose against him in a regular departmental enquiry. The petitioner, through his counsel Mr. S. Desai, argued that there was absolutely no material on record to support such subjective satisfaction. He relied on the case of Sandhya Gupta v. Director General of Police and State of Goa and Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others to contend that general impressions about witness intimidation are not sufficient to dispense with the enquiry. The respondents, represented by Mr. D. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate, defended the order. The court analyzed the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, except in cases where it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry. The court noted that the exception under Article 311(2)(b) must be based on specific facts and circumstances, not on general assumptions. The court found that the reasons given in the impugned order were vague and unsupported by any material. The mere fact that the petitioner was a police officer could not, by itself, justify the conclusion that witnesses would be overawed. The court held that the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind to the specific facts of the case and had unjustifiably invoked the exception. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order of dismissal and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and back wages, within a period of four weeks. The court also made it clear that the respondents were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised, but only after affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Service Law - Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India - Dispensation of Enquiry - The court examined whether the dismissal of a police constable by dispensing with the departmental enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) was justified. The impugned order cited only general reasons that the petitioner being a police officer would overawe witnesses and no one would dare to depose against him. The court held that such general impressions are insufficient to form the subjective satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The exception under Article 311(2)(b) must be based on specific material and cannot be invoked merely because the delinquent is a member of the police force. (Paras 2-8) B) Constitutional Law - Service Law - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Reasonable Opportunity - The court reiterated that affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Article 311(2) is the rule, and dispensation with the enquiry is an exception. The exception must be strictly construed and applied only in cases where it is genuinely not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The court found that the respondents failed to provide any material to justify the dispensation, and thus the impugned order was ultra vires Article 311(2). (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of a police constable by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India without holding a departmental enquiry was valid, given that the reasons recorded were based on a general apprehension that the petitioner would overawe witnesses and no one would depose against him.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 5.8.2015, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and back wages, within a period of four weeks. The respondents were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India
- dispensation of enquiry
- reasonable opportunity
- subjective satisfaction
- police force
- witness intimidation
