Article 311(2) Explained: Supreme Court Says No Dismissal Without Inquiry Unless Backed by Material

The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the dismissal of a Delhi Police constable, holding that the extraordinary power to dispense with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot be invoked on mere assumptions without supporting material.

The bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar said, under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, a person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank after an inquiry supplying the charges, if any, against him and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.   

Court clarified that this requirement of inquiry can be skipped only in limited situations. These include cases where the employee’s conduct has led to a criminal conviction, or where the competent authority records in writing that it is not “reasonably practicable” to hold such an inquiry.

In addition, the court said, where such power has been exercised by the President or the Governor it may be in the interest of security of the State or if not expedient to hold such an enquiry, then exceptional power under clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311 ought to be exercised.

"In case such a decision invoking the extraordinary power is taken by the competent authority, the scope of judicial review is available to the Constitutional Courts wherein the reasons as assigned for satisfaction of the authority must be reasonable, valid, justified and in writing,'' the bench said.

In addition, the satisfaction as recorded must be the objective satisfaction on the basis of material brought on record which ordinarily the disciplinary authority may take as a prudent person. Otherwise, dispensing with the enquiry is not permissible in law, the held.

The bench relied upon the Constitution bench judgment in Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel and Others (1985), which stated that despite the use of the words “this clause shall not apply” in the second proviso, it shall not make power of Article 311(2) inapplicable. In fact, second proviso to Article 311 is an exception for dispensing with the inquiry on satisfaction by recording the reasons in writing by such authority.

In the present case, court allowed an appeal filed by Manohar Lal, a constable with Delhi Police’s Special Cell, challenging his dismissal from service. His plea had earlier been rejected by the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal.

He was dismissed in July 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police without a departmental inquiry, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2). The authorities had claimed that holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable due to a perceived threat of intimidation and tampering with evidence.

The case against him arose from an FIR alleging involvement in the robbery of sandalwood logs. He was arrested and later released on bail.

Having gone through the record, court noted, no instance of traumatising the complainant or witnesses had been stated by any witness in their statements. 

Court observed that whether the allegations in the FIR were serious would be decided during trial, but there was nothing on record to show that the appellant or his associates had any links that could lead to witness intimidation.

"In absence of any material, in our view, it is merely a presumption of the ACP who conducted the preliminary enquiry and it cannot form the basis of a reasonable apprehension which may be sufficient to dispense with the regular disciplinary inquiry,'' the bench said.

The bench concluded that the decision to skip the inquiry showed lack of proper application of mind and could not be sustained in law. It also held that the case did not fall within the exception under Article 311(2).

Accordingly, court ordered that Manohar Lal be reinstated in service with continuity. He will receive all consequential benefits on a notional basis.

However, considering that he is facing a criminal case, the court restricted back wages to 50% from the date of dismissal till reinstatement.

Court also clarified that its judgment will not prevent the authorities from initiating a proper departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

Case Title: Manohar Lal Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: March 12, 2026