Dismissal Without Inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) Set Aside: Supreme Court Reaffirms Need for Objective Material and Reasoned Satisfaction

Case Name: Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 234
Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that invocation of Article 311(2)(b) to dismiss an employee without conducting a departmental inquiry must be based on objective material demonstrating that holding such inquiry is not reasonably practicable. Mere presumption, conjecture, or generalized apprehension of threat or intimidation is insufficient. In absence of cogent material, such dismissal is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Summary: The case arose from the dismissal of the appellant, a Delhi Police constable, by invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, dispensing with the requirement of a departmental inquiry. The disciplinary authority justified this action on the ground that witnesses could be threatened or intimidated, making an inquiry not reasonably practicable.

The appellant challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, both of which upheld the dismissal. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court.

The Court undertook an extensive analysis of Article 311, particularly the second proviso, and reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel. It emphasized that the power to dispense with an inquiry is an exceptional power, to be exercised sparingly and only upon satisfaction based on relevant and tangible material.

Upon examining the preliminary inquiry report and the statements of witnesses, the Court found that there was no material evidence of any actual threat, intimidation, or inducement by the appellant. The conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority was based merely on presumption and not supported by facts.

The Court also noted a crucial factual aspect that the appellant was in judicial custody at the time of dismissal, thereby weakening the claim that he could influence or threaten witnesses.

Further, the Court held that the disciplinary authority failed to properly apply its mind to the requirement of recording reasons demonstrating why holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable. It reiterated that such satisfaction must be based on objective assessment, not subjective belief.

The Court also referred to departmental circulars which cautioned authorities against mechanical invocation of Article 311(2)(b) and emphasized the need for detailed, reasoned orders supported by material evidence.

Decision: The Supreme Court: set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, CAT, and the High Court. Directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Limited back wages to 50%, considering the pendency of criminal proceedings.