SHIVAJI ATMAJI & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 14-02-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
300 
SHIVA.JI A'.IHl.JI SAllAHr & Allll.. 
V• 
FEBRUARY 14, 1986 
[A.P, SEN AND D.P. MADON., JJ.] 
Bombay Poli~e Act, 1951 : 
Sections 25 anci 27 -
Bombay Police 
Strike 
of 
constabulary - Appellants - Members of police force - Inciting 
others to commit violence - Dismissed from service -
Charge 
sheet not served, enquiry not held - 'Reasons' why not practi-
cable to hold enquiry - Served separately - Dismissal order -
Whether valid. 
. 
. 
The appellants were llll!llbers of the Bombay Police Force 
and 
office-bearers of the Maharashtra Police Karucllari Y 
Sanghtana. They were diallissed. from service without iaauing 
any charge-sheet and without holding any iuquiry into the act• 
of alleged miscouduct committed by them under silb-sa. (l) and 
(2) of a. 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 reacl with cl.(b) 
of the secoud proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitutiou. It 
was stated that they slong with other members of the llomllay 
Police Force had been instigating others in acts of iusubordi-
natlon and iudiscipline 
and to withdraw from their lawful 
duties, inciting thea to violence any 1111tiny, joining rioting 
mobs and participating in arson, looting and other criaiaal 
acts, wilfully disobeying orders of superior officers and that 
these acts had created a situation in lloabay whereby the -\-
normal functioning of the police force had been rendered 
difficult and impossible and that in view of these facts and 
circumstances, any attempt to bold a departments! inquiry by 
serving .a written charge-sheet and following the procedure 
laid ,down in the Bombay Police (Punishments & Appesl) Rulea, 
1956 would be frustrated by the collective action of these 
persons and it was therefore not practicable to bold such an 
enquiry. The appellants assailed their disllissal from aervice 
in the High Court by petitions under Art· 226 of the Consti;_ 
tution but the High Court declined to interfere. In appesl, it 'rl 
was conteuded on behslf of the appellants that ~be hlpngned ' 
orders of dismissal suffered from a tots! non-application of 
..,_ 
.. 
SHIVAJI ATMA.JI v. STATE 
301 
~ mind inasmuch as (a) identical orders were passed against 43 
other members of the Constabulary and all ·the orders were 
cyclostyled; and (b) the reasons for dispensing with the 
enquiry did not accompany the order of dismissal. 
A 
Dismissing the a~peals, 
B 
.._ 
lllWl: 1.1 The recording of reasons for dispensing with 
an inquiry is a condition precedent_ to the applicability of 
cl. (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Consti-
tution; and, if such reasons are not recorded in writing, the 
order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty 
following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional. 
c 
If the order of dismissal under cl.(b) of the second proviso 
to Art. 311 (2) imposes a penalty without furnishing reasons, 
it would be bad and would be required to be struck down. 
[308 D-E; F] 
Satyavir Singh and Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., 
D 
" 
[1985] 4 s.c.c. 252 and Union of India & Aar. v. Tnlsiraa 
Patel & Ors. connected 11&tters, [ 1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, followed. 
1.2 In the instant case, however, the impugned ord11rs of 
dismissal served on each of the appellants itself sets out the 
reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an 
E 
inquiry; and, the "reasons" served separately merely amplified 
and elaborated what had been stated in the impugned order. 
There· is therefore no substance in the contention that the 
reasons for dispensing with the inquiry did not accompany the 
order. [308 G; 309 B; 308 D] 
2.1 Normally, the passing of several cyclostyled orders 
would, prims facie, imply non-application of mind but this is 
not a rule of universal application and it would depend upon 
the facts and circumstances of each case whether the impugned 
order suffers from such infirmity. [307 E-F] 
2.2 In a situation where the acts alleged were of a 
large group acting collectively with the common object of 
coercing the authority, and it is not possible to parti-
cularize the acts of each individual member of the group, 
F 
G 
!Ill' cyclostyled orders passed against the members 
of the group 
would not be vitiated by non-application of mind. (308 A-Bl 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
3.1 The appellants were not without remedy against the • 
impui;ned order of dismissal from servic~. They had the remedy 
of an appeal under s. 27 of the Bo11bay 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.