Delhi High Court Quashes Summary Dismissal of Police Constable for Supporting Farmers’ Protest: Holds ‘Seriousness of Charges Alone Cannot Justify Dispensing with Enquiry under Article 311(2)(b)’

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order that quashed the dismissal of a police constable. The court ruled that dismissing a government servant without a departmental enquiry merely because the charges were serious violates the principles of natural justice. It directed the authorities to conduct a proper disciplinary enquiry within three months.

Facts:

1. The constable was dismissed from service for posting comments on social media in support of farmers protesting government policies.
2. Authorities claimed this act violated:
   • The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, which restricts the expression of certain political views by police officers.
   • The Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1972, which criminalizes actions that could lower discipline within the force.
3. The constable’s dismissal was carried out without a departmental enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. This provision allows for dismissal without an enquiry if holding one is deemed impracticable.
4. The dismissal was based on the conclusion that his retention in the police force would harm public interest.

Issues:

1. Whether the constable’s dismissal, without a departmental enquiry, was legally justified.
2. Whether the authorities provided valid and specific reasons for dispensing with the enquiry process.

Petitioner’s (Authorities’) Arguments:

1. The constable’s conduct was inappropriate for a disciplined force like the police and caused reputational harm to the force.
2. Conducting a departmental enquiry would have been impractical, as it could be lengthy and detrimental to public interest.
3. They relied on precedents like Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, which permits bypassing an enquiry in certain cases of urgency or impracticality.

Respondent’s (Constable’s) Arguments:

1. The dismissal order was arbitrary and lacked a valid rationale for skipping the enquiry process.
2. Authorities violated their own circulars (dated 21.12.1993 and 11.09.2007), which mandate recording detailed reasons for dispensing with an enquiry.
3. The CAT rightly quashed the dismissal, as the authorities provided no cogent reason for not holding the enquiry.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution allows dismissal without a departmental enquiry only if it is “not reasonably practicable” to hold one.
2. The Supreme Court in Tulsi Ram Patel and Jaswant Singh has clarified that:
   • Authorities must provide objective, well-documented reasons for such actions.
   • The decision cannot be based solely on subjective perceptions or convenience.
3. The court emphasized that seriousness of the charges alone does not justify bypassing an enquiry. Proper reasons for impracticality must be clearly documented.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referenced similar cases, including:

1. Commissioner of Police v. Kapil:
   • Dismissal without enquiry was deemed improper, as the reasons provided were vague and unsubstantiated.
   • The court held that perceived inconvenience of conducting an enquiry is not a sufficient ground.
2. Dushyant Kumar v. Commissioner of Police:
   • Authorities’ cryptic dismissal orders, lacking proper reasoning, were struck down.

These cases highlighted that procedural safeguards must not be bypassed arbitrarily, even in cases of serious misconduct.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The dismissal order failed to provide any substantive reasoning for dispensing with the enquiry.
2. The authorities merely cited the seriousness of the misconduct and potential delays in conducting an enquiry, which are insufficient reasons under the law.
3. The CAT was correct in quashing the dismissal and allowing time for a proper disciplinary enquiry while keeping the constable under suspension.
4. The court emphasized the principle that bypassing a departmental enquiry is an exception and must be justified with clear, objective, and well-documented reasons.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the authorities’ writ petition, reaffirming the CAT’s decision:

1. The dismissal order was quashed for lacking a valid rationale.
2. The authorities were given an additional three months to initiate and complete a disciplinary enquiry.
3. The constable was to remain under suspension until the conclusion of the enquiry.

Implications:

1. Reinforcement of Procedural Safeguards: The ruling ensures that government authorities cannot dismiss employees arbitrarily by invoking Article 311(2)(b) without proper justification.
2. Strengthening the Principle of Natural Justice: It underscores the importance of providing employees an opportunity to be heard, even in cases involving serious misconduct.
3. Administrative Accountability: Authorities must carefully document and substantiate their decisions to dispense with an enquiry, preventing misuse of discretionary powers.
4. Impact on Disciplinary Procedures: The judgment will likely prompt public authorities to reassess how they handle dismissals and ensure compliance with procedural requirements.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Directs RBI to Expedite Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility for RTGS and NEFT Transactions to Safeguard Consumer Interests and Ensure Compliance with CEIB SOPs Against Cyber Fraud