The disciplinary authority must record cogent, legally tenable, and speaking reasons in writing for its satisfaction.
Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2026 INSC 234
Citation: 2026 INSC 234
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Date of Judgment: March 12, 2026
Facts:
The appellant, Manohar Lal, a Constable with the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) on July 18, 2017. The DCP invoked clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry on the ground that it was not “reasonably practicable.” This decision was based on a preliminary inquiry report by an ACP, which suggested that the complainant and witnesses were traumatized and that the appellant, due to his association with criminals, might intimidate or induce them to turn hostile. The appellant was in judicial custody at the time of his dismissal. His appeal to the appellate authority, his Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and his Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi were all dismissed. Aggrieved, he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry and dismissing the appellant from service by invoking the exceptional power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, based on the reasons recorded.
Held:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the CAT and the High Court, and quashed the dismissal order. The Court held that the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority for dispensing with the inquiry were insufficient, based on presumption and not on any definite material, and thus amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages, with liberty to the respondents to initiate a regular departmental inquiry if they so desired.
Law Points
- Article 311(2)(b) is an Exception, Not a Rule: The power under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is an extraordinary exception to the constitutional mandate of holding a regular departmental inquiry. It cannot be used as a “short cut” to avoid the regular disciplinary process. [Para 33, 41]
- Condition Precedent for Invoking Clause (b): The condition precedent for applying clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that holding an inquiry is not “reasonably practicable.” This satisfaction must be based on objective facts and definite material, not on the ipse dixit (mere say-so) of the authority or on assumptions and conjectures. [Para 32, 34, 38]
- Meaning of “Not Reasonably Practicable”: The term “not reasonably practicable” is stronger than “impracticable.” It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation at the ground level. It is not to be decided in the “cool and detached atmosphere of a court-room.” [Para 18, 30]
- Reasons Must be Recorded in Writing and Be Relevant: The disciplinary authority must record cogent, legally tenable, and speaking reasons in writing for its satisfaction. These reasons must be germane to the situation envisaged in clause (b) and must demonstrate why the normal procedure cannot be followed. [Para 19, 33]
- Burden of Proof and Scope of Judicial Review: While the decision of the disciplinary authority under Article 311(3) is final, it is not binding on constitutional courts. The Court can judicially review the order to examine if the reasons are relevant and based on material. The burden is on the department to show that the satisfaction was based on objective facts. The Court will strike down the order if the reasons are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, or an abuse of power. [Para 16, 18, 19, 32]
- Mere Presumption or Belief is Insufficient: The disciplinary authority cannot dispense with an inquiry based on a mere “presumption” or “belief” of potential threat or intimidation. There must be some instance or material on record to demonstrate that the complainant or witnesses were actually threatened or had a reasonable apprehension of harm. [Para 28, 31, 35]
- Appellant’s Custody is a Relevant Factor: If the delinquent employee is in custody at the time of the dismissal order, the disciplinary authority must indicate any specific instances of threat or intimidation emanating from the custody. An omnibus apprehension, without any basis, is insufficient to justify dispensing with the inquiry. [Para 31]
- Appellate Hearing Does Not Cure a Defect: The fact that the appellant was heard by the appellate authority does not cure the fundamental defect of an invalid order passed by the disciplinary authority under clause (b). The validity of the invocation of clause (b) is a separate issue that must stand on its own merits. [Para 22]
- Reliance on Departmental Circulars: Disciplinary authorities are bound to follow departmental circulars (like the Delhi Police circulars of 1998 and 2007 cited in the judgment) which emphasize that Article 311(2)(b) should not be invoked lightly and only after recording valid reasons based on material facts. [Para 33, 34]
- Consequences of Invalid Invocation: If the order dispensing with the inquiry is found to be invalid, the consequent order of penalty (dismissal) is also void and liable to be quashed. The employee is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits, though back wages may be restricted based on the facts of the case (e.g., 50% awarded here). The department is not precluded from initiating a fresh, regular departmental inquiry. [Para 42, 43]
