http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6361-6363 of 2002

PETITIONER: State of Haryana and Others                              

RESPONDENT: Ram Kumar and Ors. etc.                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/03/2004

BENCH: V.N. KHARE & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6365 of 2002

       The respondents were the members of the Haryana  Police Force.  It appears that they committed several  misconducts, as a result of which departmental enquiry  was initiated against them.  It is alleged that they refused  to participate in the departmental enquiry.  They tore off  the documents (including the summary of allegations)  produced against them and threatened their seniors. It is  alleged that for the aforesaid reasons the departmental  enquiry was not found reasonably practicable and,  therefore, respondents were removed from service under  Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.  Respondents,  against the order of removal, filed writ petitions under  Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court  which were allowed.  It is in this way, the State is in  appeal before us.

       Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the  High Court committed error in allowing the writ petitions  inasmuch as the appellants herein, had made out  sufficient cause for dispensing with the enquiry under  Article 311(2)(b).  It is also contended that in the present  case the behaviour of the respondents during the enquiry,  as stated above, made the holding of the departmental  enquiry not reasonably practicable.  It was submitted that  under Article 311(2)(b) a situation which makes the  holding of a departmental enquiry not reasonably  practicable can exist before the commencement of  enquiry and also can come into existence during the  course of the enquiry i.e. after the service of the charge- sheet.  In this connection reliance was placed on the  judgment of this Court in the case of Satyavir Singh v.  Union of India [AIR 1986 SC 555].                  We have gone through the record.  Article 311(2(b)  reads as under: -         "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction  in rank of persons employed in civil  capacities under the Union or a State.\027

(1)     \005.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(2)     No such person as aforesaid shall be  dismissed or removed or reduced in rank  except after an inquiry in which he has been  informed of the charges against him and given  a reasonable opportunity of being heard in  respect of those charges.

       [Provided that where it is proposed after  such inquiry, to impose upon him any such  penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the  basis of the evidence adduced during such  inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give  such person any opportunity of making  representation on the penalty proposed:

       Provided further that this clause shall  not apply--]

       (a) \005. (b)   where the authority empowered to  dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him  in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be  recorded by that authority in writing, it is not  reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry;  or"         A perusal of Article 311(2)(b) shows that it 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.  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 was based on certain objective facts and  is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the officer.  A  disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a  departmental enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or merely to  avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the case of the  department against the government servant is weak (see  para 130 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this  Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel  reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416].  In the present case, the  reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority for  dispensing with the enquiry were non-participation by the  delinquents in the enquiry; destruction of the records by  the delinquents in the course of the enquiry; abusing the  enquiry officer and giving of threats to senior police  officers.  In our view on facts of this case, there is no  sufficient ground for dispensing with the enquiry under  clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the  Constitution.  What we found here that the enquiry was  being held by senior police officers; the delinquents were  head constables and nothing prevented the enquiry  officer from proceeding with the enquiry ex parte under  the above circumstances.  On the facts of the case, we  are of the view that the reasons given in this case for  dispensing with the enquiry do not fall within the  expression "not reasonably practicable" under clause (b)  of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution  and accordingly, we are in agreement with the view taken  by the High Court.

       The appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed  with no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       Before we part with this case, we would like to  observe that it will be open to the appellants to proceed  with the enquiry from the stage it was found vitiated.