IKRAMUDDIN AHMED BORAH versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DARRANG & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 27-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

IKRAMUDDIN _AHMED BORAH , , . .. 
A 
y. ~-
" 
SUPERINTENDENT OF .POLICE, DARRANG & OTin!RS 
n. ,'; 
SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N,D. OJHA, JJ.) 
B 
',; 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311(2)(b)-'Not reasonably 
practicable to hold such enquiry'-lnterpretation of-The holding of 
the enquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking 
a reasonable view of the prevailing situation-Non avai/abilitiof witnes-
ses on account offear of the officer concerned-A sufficient ground. 
Assam Police Manual: P,art III Rule l l(X) and Column 11-Sub-
Jnspector-Appointed "by Principal Police Training College--D1smissal 
by Superintendent-Whether valid and legal. 
c 
The appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police was dismissed by 
D 
the Superintendent of Police by an order dated 29th January, 1973, 
exercising powes under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) 
of the Constitution of India. The appellant preferred an appeal to the 
Inspector General of Police, and the said appeal having been dismissed, 
he challenged the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order in an 
application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. A E 
Division Bench, however, dismissed the application. 
' 
In the appeal by special leave to this Court, it was contended on 
behalf of the appellant that: 
(l) the appellant having been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by 
F 
the Inspector General of Police, the order of his dismissal by the 
Superintendent of Police was illegal being in contravention of Article 
311(1) of the Constitution, and (2) the provisions of clause (b) of the 
second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution were not attracted 
to the facts of the case and consequently the order of dismissal was 
illegal having been passed without compliancP with the requirements of G 
Article 311(2). 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court, 
HELD: I. The Superintendent of Police and Principal, Police 
Training College, Assam- are authorities having coordinate jurisdiction 
H 
._ . .;' 
323 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
to appoint Sub-Inspectors under Rule ll(X)_and Schedule Column II of 
A the Assam Police Manual, Part III. '[329E; 328H] 
In the instant case, the appellant having been appointed by the 
Principal Police Training College Darrang, Assam, and having been 
dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, District Tejpur 
B who was a coordinate authority, the submission that the order of dis-
missal was illegal as having been passed by an authority subordinate to 
that by which he was appointed has no substance. [329E-F] 
· 
2. While construing the words "it is not reasonably practicable to 
hold such enquiry" used in clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 
311(2) it was held In Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel and Others, 
C 
[1985] Supplement 2 SCR 131, that whether it was practicable to hold 
the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was 
reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impractica-
bility which Is required. What is requisite is that the holding of the 
inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a 
D reasonable view of, the prevailing situation. One of the illustrations 
justifying clause (b) ofthe second proviso to Article 311(2) being 
invoked, is the non availability of the witnesses on account of fear of the 
officer concerned. [330G:H; 331A-B, 332A] 
In the instant case, it·is apparent from the order of dismissal that 
E this was the main ground for invoking the said clause (b). The 
Superintendent of Police who passed the order of dismissal was the best 
authority on the spot to assess the situation in the circumstances pre' 
vailing at the relevant time and this Court does not find any 'good 
ground to .-interfere with the view taken by the Superintendent of Police 
in this behalf. In such matters the Court will not sit in judgment over 
F the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority for 
invokiiig Clause (b) like a Court of appeal. Even in those ca~es wh_ere 
two views are possible, the Court will decline to interfere. [332A-B, C] 
G 
H 
CIVIL_ APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 977 
of1976. · 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1976 of the Guwahati 
High Court in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973. 
- · 
-
D.N. Mukherjee, N.R. Choudhary and Ranjau Mukherjee for 
the Appellant. 
~-
' -· 
. LA. BORAH v. SUPDT. OF POLICE (OJHA, J.l 
325
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.