Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal Under Article 311(2)(b), Reinstates Police Constable and Limits Back Wages

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard the appeal by a dismissed Delhi Police constable challenging his summary dismissal under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and subsequent affirmations by the Appellate Authority, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. The question before the Court was whether the disciplinary authority validly recorded satisfaction that “it is not reasonably practicable” to hold a regular departmental inquiry so as to dispense with the protections of Article 311(2).

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order dated 18.07.2017 and the orders of the CAT and the High Court, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service while restricting back wages to 50% from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. The Court held that the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction was recorded without application of mind and without sufficient material to bring the case within the exception to Article 311(2). As the Court put it, the DCP’s action “dispensing with the regular procedure of inquiry is arbitrary” and could not be sustained. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that ‘it is not reasonably practicable to hold’ the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words used are ‘not reasonably practicable’ and not ‘impracticable’... Whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. ... It would not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry where the government servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so ... The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. ... Where two views are possible, the court will decline to interfere.”

Background:
The appellant, Constable Manohar Lal (PIS No. 28070974), faced FIR No. 390/2017 registered on 28.06.2017 and was arrested on 29.06.2017. A preliminary inquiry by ACP Govind Sharma compiled DD entries, arrest and seizure memos, pointing-out records and statements of the complainant and investigating officers. The ACP concluded that the complainant and witnesses had been “traumatized by the egregious act” of the appellant and that, given the appellant’s alleged close association with criminals, there was “every possibility” he could approach witnesses through associates to intimidate or induce them to turn hostile. Relying on that report the Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed the constable on 18.07.2017 invoking Article 311(2)(b) and recorded that holding a departmental inquiry “would not be reasonably practicable”.

The Appellate Authority affirmed; the CAT and the Delhi High Court declined to interfere. On plenary review the Supreme Court summoned and examined the preliminary inquiry report and the witness statements. The Court found no instance in the recorded statements that complainant or witnesses had been threatened, intimidated or traumatized, nor material demonstrating a real possibility of tampering with evidence or of influencing witnesses from custody. Applying the Constitution Bench test in Tulsiram Patel and subsequent precedents, the Court held that the subjective satisfaction to dispense with inquiry must be grounded in objective material and that mere presumption or ipse dixit of the ACP could not justify the exceptional step. The Court observed that the disciplinary authority “failed to understand the letter and spirit of Tulsiram Patel” and that dispensing with inquiry in the absence of cogent material was arbitrary.

The Court quashed the dismissal, directed immediate reinstatement with continuity of service and allowed the State liberty to initiate departmental proceedings in accordance with law; back wages were limited to 50% pending outcome of any inquiry. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13860 OF 2024
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 234
Case Title: Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Brijender Chahar, Additional Solicitor General

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 206