← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India12 March 20262026 INSC 234

Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police

Bench of 2 · Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates defending government servants dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) can cite this judgment for the proposition that the disciplinary authority's satisfaction must be grounded in objective, on-record material — not conjecture — and that an employee's concurrent judicial custody fatally undermines any claim of witness intimidation as justification for dispensing with the inquiry; the judgment also reinforces that Constitutional Courts retain full judicial review power notwithstanding Article 311(3).

Summary

A Delhi Police constable posted in the Special Cell was arrested on 29.06.2017 in connection with FIR No. 390/2017 for robbery. While he remained in judicial custody, the DCP passed an order dated 18.07.2017 dismissing him from service in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 311(2) second proviso clause (b), dispensing with the regular departmental inquiry on the ground that holding one was "not reasonably practicable" — the stated reason being a reasonable belief of threat, intimidation and inducement to the victim and the possibility of tampering with vital evidence. The appellate authority confirmed the dismissal; the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court both declined to interfere.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and quashed the dismissal order. Examining the preliminary inquiry report of the ACP — which it called for suo motu — the Court found that none of the recorded witness statements disclosed any actual instance of threat, intimidation or inducement. The conclusion that the complainant and witnesses had been "traumatised" and that the appellant might approach them through associates was a bare presumption of the ACP, unsupported by any objective material. Crucially, the dismissal order was passed while the appellant was in custody, making the apprehension of witness intimidation from outside wholly unfounded. The disciplinary authority had acted entirely without application of mind, and the satisfaction recorded was not the objective satisfaction on material that the law demands.

The Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 — particularly paragraphs 130 and 138 — and applied Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 362 on analogous facts. It also noted that the Delhi Police's own departmental circulars of 31.12.1998 and 11.09.2007, issued in the wake of Tulsiram Patel, expressly warned against invoking Article 311(2)(b) on "assumptions and conjectures". The orders of the CAT and the High Court were set aside; the appellant is to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits notionally, but back wages from the date of dismissal to reinstatement are restricted to 50% given his alleged involvement in the criminal case. The reinstatement is without prejudice to the respondents' right to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

Key principle

Invocation of Article 311(2) second proviso clause (b) to dispense with a departmental inquiry requires objective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority recorded in writing and grounded in definite material on record; a bare presumption or conjecture — particularly where the delinquent employee is already in judicial custody and no witness has reported any actual threat or intimidation — cannot constitute the "not reasonably practicable" satisfaction mandated by the clause, and such an order is liable to be struck down in judicial review.

Holding

Allowed — the dismissal order passed under Article 311(2) second proviso clause (b) was arbitrary and without application of mind because the disciplinary authority's satisfaction rested on the ACP's bare presumption unsupported by any material, and was passed while the appellant was in judicial custody, rendering the apprehension of witness intimidation wholly unfounded; the orders of the CAT and the High Court affirming the dismissal are set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

Statutes invoked

  • Constitution · Article 311(2) second proviso clause (b)
  • Delhi Police Act, 1978 · 21
  • Delhi Police Act, 1978 · 22
  • Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 · Rule 6
  • Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 · Rule 14
  • Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 · Rule 16

Practice areas

serviceconstitutionalwrit
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.