LexMANOHAR LAL versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 358 : 2026 INSC 234 Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13860 of 2024) 12 March 2026 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to dismissal of police constable without conducting departmental inquiry, holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.311(2) second proviso clause (b) – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State – Exercise of the power u/Art.311 – Registration of FIR against the appellant- constable posted in the Special Cell for the offence of robbery and thereafter arrested and taken in custody – While he was in custody the order of dismissal passed in exercise of the power u/Art.311(2) second proviso clause (b) holding that it would not be ‘reasonably practicable’ to conduct a regular departmental enquiry on account of reasonable belief of threat, intimidation and inducement to the victim and thereby creating the possibility of tampering of the vital evidence – Appellant filed application seeking quashment of his dismissal order, however rejected by the tribunal – Writ petition thereagainst also dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: It is vivid from the analysis of the intent of Art.311(2) that an employee holding a post in Union or State ought not to be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one by which he was appointed – 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 – Applicability of the said clause is restricted in a situation wherein his conduct led to his conviction of criminal * Author [2026] 3 S.C.R. 359 Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. charges or where the authority empowered who dismissed, removed or reduced in rank records reason in writing upon satisfaction that it is not ‘reasonably practicable’ to hold an enquiry against him – 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 Art.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 – 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 not permissible in law – On facts, the power exercised by the authority is completely without application of mind, thus, the question of recording of satisfaction as affirmed by the appellate authority, the CAT and the High Court does not arise – Thus, the order dispensing with the regular procedure of inquiry is arbitrary and consequently the order of dismissal of the appellant to be quashed and the orders of the CAT and the High Court affirming the said dismissal order stand set aside – Order passed by the CAT and the High Court set aside and the order of dismissal passed by the DCP and confirmed by the appellate authority quashed – In consequence, the appellant to be reinstated with continuity of service, being entitled for all consequential benefits notionally – Since, the appellant found involved in a criminal case, back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement restricted to 50%. [Paras 40-43] Case Law Cited Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel and Others [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 : (1985) 3 SCC 398 – relied on. Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 354 : (1991) 1 SCC 362 – held applicable. Ex. Const. Chhote Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 196; Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 525; Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 581; State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh [2007] 11 SCR 752 : (2007) 15 SCC 217; Reena Rani v. State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC 215; 360 [2026] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Risal Singh v. State of Haryana [2014] 7 SCR 544 : (2014) 13 SCC 244; Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.