"Cannot Presume That He Would Ultimately Be Convicted In Murder Case": Delhi HC Reinstates Police Constable Dismissed From Service Without Conducting Inquiry

The Delhi High Court has upheld an Administrative Tribunal Order reinstating a police constable who was dismissed from service after being booked for murder by invoking a Constitutional provision that allows dismissal without any inquiry.

The Court was hearing a case on a constable's dismissal from service invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution after he was booked for murder and disappearance of evidence. Subsequently, the Central Administrative Tribunal, set aside the Order of dismissal and the rejection of appeal. Aggrieved, the State moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held, "The Order... whereby the respondent’s services were dispensed with, does not contain a single recital worth the name to indicate that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry."

Advocate Laavanya Kaushik appeared for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Advocate Sachin Chauhan appeared for the Respondent-constable.

Article 311(2) provides that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which they have been informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Clause (b) of this sub-section states that this rule shall not apply "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."

In the Order dismissing him from service under Article 311(2)(b), the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, as the Disciplinary Authority, stated that the involvement of the constable in the criminal act was "not only undesirable, but it also amounts to serious misconduct and indiscipline, totally unbecoming of a police officer." 

The High Court, noting the text of the Order, said, "All that is said is that the offence of which the respondent was charged was a dastardly act, which would destroy the faith of the people in law enforcement system and amounted to serious misconduct and indiscipline, totally unbecoming of a police officer. Apart from this, there is a mere presumptive statement that “no witness will come forward for any inquiry”. The basis for this assumption was not forthcoming before the learned Tribunal, and is not forthcoming before us."

The Court said if such reasoning is allowed, "it would be permissible for the requirement of an inquiry to be dispensed with, and invoke proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, in the case of every police official who is charged with a serious crime."

On the State's contention that the charges against the constable were serious, the Court stated that decisions of the Supreme Court make it clear that the gravity of the offence for which an officer is charged with is extraneous to the issue of whether the holding of an inquiry was legitimately dispensed with.

The State is "not a trial court and cannot presume that the respondent would ultimately be convicted. It is for this reason, that the Supreme Court has advisably held that the gravity of the offence with which the respondent is charged is not a relevant consideration while examining whether circumstances exist which justify dispensation with the requirement of holding a formal inquiry." the Court said.

The Court cited the Supreme Court's Judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) in which it had cautioned against using Article 311(2)(b) in a routine manner. In that Judgment, the Court, while conceding that it is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry, had given certain examples in which the provision would be applicable. One such instance would be where a government servant terrorises, threatens or intimidates witnesses.

The Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel said, "A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail. The finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned and in such a case the court will strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing penalty.”

The Court in the present case noted that the Delhi Police had itself issued circulars following the decision in Tulsiram Patel setting out the relevant circumstances which have to be borne in mind while invoking Article 311(2)(b). "It is well settled that the Government is bound by the circulars issued by it." it remarked.

The constable in the case was dismissed from service after a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed. He was charged with having murdered his parents, whose bodies were found in a plot near his residence. It was also alleged in the FIR that the respondent had admitted to the crime before the Investigating Officer. He was later acquitted in the criminal case.

The Administrative Tribunal set aside the Order of dismissal and of rejection of appeal on the ground that no case for invocation of proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was made out. Simultaneously, the State was granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.

Declining to interfere with the Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi And Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar [2024:DHC:8336-DB]

Appearance: 

Petitioner: Advocate Laavanya Kaushik

Respondent: Advocates Sachin Chauhan, Ridhi Dua, Abhimanyu Baliyan and Himanshu Raghav

Click here to read/download the Judgment