Page 1

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2839 OF 2011

Risal Singh  Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

 In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to  

the  defensibility  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

21.11.2008 passed by the High Court  of Punjab and  

Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  C.W.P.  No.  19816/2008  

whereby  the  Division Bench  has  concurred  with  the  

order  of  dismissal  of  the  appellant  passed  by  the  

Government  after  dispensing  with  the  inquiry  as  

provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.    

Page 2

2. The  broad  essential  facts  which  need  to  be  

adumbrated for the decision of the present appeal are  

that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ad hoc  

Sub-Inspector) serving in the Department of Police in  

the  State  of  Haryana,  as  alleged,  was involved in  a  

corruption  sting  operation  in  a  television  channel.  

Because  of  the  said  alleged  sting  operation,  the  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Mewat  at  Nuh,  vide  order  

dated 19.06.2008, after referring to the news item in  

the television channel, proceeded to pass the following  

order:

   “.....

2.  The above said act on the part of above  official shows his criminal activities.  He being  a member of a disciplined force is responsible  for  protecting  the  life  and  property  of  the  citizen  of  this  country,  but  instead  of  discharging his duty honestly and sincerely he  himself has indulged in criminal activities.  As  such he has not only tarnished the image of  the Haryana Police but also has rudely shaken  faith of the citizens of Haryana in  the entire  Police  force,  who  is  supposed  to  be  their  protectors.   He  has  acted  in  a  most  reprehensible  manner.   Which is  unexpected  from  a  member  of  disciplined  force  and  undoubtedly  extremely  prejudicial  to  the  person safety and security of citizen.  

2

Page 3

3.  The involvement  of said  police official  in  such a shameful criminal activity has eroded  the  faith  of  common  people  and  his  continuance  in  the  force  is  likely  to  cause  further irreparable loss to the functioning and  credibility of Haryana Police.  The defaulter has  acted in a manner highly unbecoming of police  official.  After such act of serious misconduct.  If he is allowed to continue in the Police force,  it would be detrimental to public interest.  

4.  Keeping in view the overall circumstances  of  above  operation,  I  K.K.  Rao,  IPS,  Superintendent  of  Police,  Mewat  at  Nuh,  in  exercise of the powers conferred under Article  311(2)(b)  of  Constitution  of  India  I  hereby  order  the  dismissal  of  SI  Rishal  Singh   No.  133/GGN with immediate effect.  A copy of this  order be delivered to him free of cost.”

3. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order,  the  

appellant preferred a civil  writ petition and the High  

Court  without  adverting  to  the  essential  contention  

that no reason had been ascribed for dispensing with  

the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) opined that prompt  

action was required to be taken to avoid spreading of  

trouble  and,  therefore,  the  order  passed  by  the  

authority was justified.  

4. Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel for the appellant  

has submitted that the power with the employer rests  

3

Page 4

to dispense with the inquiry invoking the constitutional  

provision, yet appropriate reasons have to be ascribed  

and in absence of ascription of reasons, the order is  

vitiated in law and the eventual consequence would be  

quashment of the order of dismissal.  

5. Mr. Manjit  Singh, learned counsel for the State  

submitted  that  regard  being  had  to  the  nature  of  

allegations, the Superintendent  of Police,  who is  the  

competent  authority,  thought  it  appropriate  to  

dispense  with  the  inquiry  and,  hence,  the  order  of  

dismissal cannot be flawed.  

6. We have already reproduced the order passed  

by the competent authority.  On a bare perusal of the  

same, it is clear as day that it is bereft of reason.  Non-

ascribing of reason while passing an order dispensing  

with  enquiry,  which  otherwise  is  a  must,  definitely  

invalidates such an action.  In this context, reference  

to  the  authority  in  Union  of  India  and  Anr.  v.  

Tulsiram  Patel1 is  apposite.  In  the  said  case  the  

1 (1985) 3 SCC 398

4

Page 5

Constitution Bench, while dealing with the exercise of  

power under Article 311(2)(b), has ruled thus:

“130. The condition precedent for the appli- cation of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the  disciplinary authority that “it is not reason- ably  practicable  to  hold”  the  inquiry  con- templated by clause (2) of Article 311. What  is pertinent to note is that the words used  are  “not  reasonably  practicable”  and  not  “impracticable”.  According  to  the  Oxford  English Dictionary “practicable” means “Ca- pable of being put into practice, carried out  in action, effected, accomplished, or done;  feasible”. Webster’s Third New International   Dictionary defines the word “practicable” in- ter alia as meaning “possible to practice or  perform : capable of being put into practice,  done  or  accomplished:  feasible”.  Further,  the words used are not “not practicable” but  “not  reasonably  practicable”.  Webster’s  Third  New International  Dictionary defines  the word “reasonably” as “in a reasonable  manner: to a fairly sufficient extent”. Thus,  whether  it  was practicable  to  hold the  in- quiry or not must be judged in the context  of whether it was reasonably practicable to  do so. It is not a total or absolute impracti- cability  which  is  required  by  clause  (b).  What is requisite is that the holding of the  inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a  reasonable man taking a reasonable view of  the prevailing situation.”  

7. In  Jaswant  Sing  v.  State  of  Punjab  and  

Others2  the Court, while dealing with the exercise of  2 (1991) 1 SCC 362

5

Page 6

power as conferred by way of exception under Article  

311(2)(b) of the Constitution, opined as follows:

“Clause  (b)  of  the  second  proviso  to  Article  311(2) can be invoked only when the authority  is  satisfied  from  the  material  placed  before  him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold  a departmental enquiry. This is clear from the  following observation at page 270 of Tulsiram  case: (SCC p.504, para 130)

“A  disciplinary  authority  is  not  expected to dispense with a disciplinary  inquiry  lightly  or  arbitrarily  or  out  of  ulterior  motives  or  merely  in  order  to  avoid  the  holding  of  an  inquiry  or  because the department's case against  the  government  servant  is  weak  and  must fail.”

The  decision  to  dispense  with  the  departmental  enquiry  cannot,  therefore,  be  rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned  authority.   When  the  satisfaction  of  the  concerned authority is questioned in a court of  law, it is incumbent on those who support the  order to show that the satisfaction is based on  certain objective facts and is not the outcome  of  the  whim  or  caprice  of  the  concerned  officer.”

8. After  so stating, the two-Judge Bench quashed  

the order of dismissal and directed the appellant to be  

reinstated  in  service  forthwith  with  the  monetary  

benefits.  Be it noted, it was also observed therein that  

6

Page 7

it  would  be  open  to  the  employer,  if  so  advised,  

notwithstanding the lapse of time, to proceed with the  

disciplinary proceedings.  

9. Recently, in Reena Rani v. State of Haryana3,  

after referring to the various authorities in the field,  

the Court ruled that  when reasons are not ascribed,  

the  order  is  vitiated  and  accordingly  set  aside  the  

order of dismissal which had been concurred with by  

the  Single  Judge  and  directed  for  reinstatement  in  

service with all  consequential  benefits.    It  has  also  

been observed therein that the order passed by this  

Court  would  not  preclude  the  competent  authority  

from taking action against the Appellant in accordance  

with law.    

10. Tested  on  the  touchstone  of  the  aforesaid  

authorities, the irresistible conclusion is that the order  

passed by the Superintendent of Police dispensing with  

the  inquiry  is  totally  unsustainable  and  is  hereby  

annulled.  As the foundation founders, the order of the  

3 (2012) 10 SCC 215

7

Page 8

High  Court  giving  the  stamp  of  approval  to  the  

ultimate order without addressing the lis from a proper  

perspective  is  also  indefensible  and  resultantly,  the  

order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority  

has to pave the path of extinction.  

11. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside  

the order  passed by the High Court  and that  of the  

disciplinary authority.  The appellant shall be deemed  

to be in service till the date of superannuation.  As he  

has  attained  the  age  of  superannuation  in  the  

meantime,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  all  consequential  

benefits.  The arrears shall be computed and paid to  

the appellant within a period of three months hence.  

Needless  to  say,  the  respondents  are  not  precluded  

from initiating any disciplinary proceedings, if advised  

in law.  As the lis has been pending before the Court,  

the  period  that  has  been  spent  in  Court  shall  be  

excluded for the purpose of limitation for initiating the  

disciplinary  proceedings  as  per  rules.   However,  we  

may  hasten  to  clarify  that  our  observations  herein  

8

Page 9

should  not  be  construed  as  a  mandate  to  the  

authorities  to  initiate  the  proceeding  against  the  

appellant.   We may further proceed to add that the  

State  Government  shall  conduct  itself  as  a  model  

employer  and  act  with  the  objectivity  which  is  

expected from it.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

...............................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

...............................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI MAY 13, 2014

9