The Patna High Court has clarified the limits of using Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution to dismiss a government servant without a departmental inquiry. In this 2021 oral judgment, the Court set aside the dismissal of a police constable who was terminated during the COVID-19 lockdown period without any inquiry. The Court held that while serious allegations may justify strict punishment, an employer cannot bypass the inquiry requirement unless it specifically records why an inquiry is “not reasonably practicable” and shows cogent, contemporaneous reasons for that satisfaction. The matter was remitted for a fresh, reasoned decision by the disciplinary authority within eight weeks, leaving it open to either hold a regular inquiry or—if truly justified—invoke Article 311(2)(b) with properly recorded reasons.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns a police constable (the “petitioner”) who was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, on 26 March 2020, with effect from 25 March 2020—the date of an alleged incident during the nation-wide lockdown. According to the record, the local Station House Officer received information that some police personnel were extracting illegal gratification under the pretext of enforcing lockdown restrictions. When he reached the location, he found an injured person with a gunshot wound allegedly caused by one of the constables. An FIR under various IPC sections and the Arms Act was registered, and three constables, including the petitioner, were arrested.

The disciplinary authority invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution—an exceptional provision that permits dismissal without a departmental inquiry in situations where conducting such an inquiry is not reasonably practicable—and dismissed the petitioner. On appeal, the Inspector General of Police, Patna, affirmed the dismissal. The petitioner approached the Patna High Court, arguing that no departmental proceeding was initiated and no show-cause was issued; further, the authority failed to record reasons for dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b).

The High Court explained that the general rule under Article 311(2) is that a government servant cannot be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an inquiry and an opportunity of being heard. The second proviso to Article 311(2) carves out three narrow exceptions: (a) conviction on a criminal charge; (b) when it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry; and (c) when the President or Governor is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of State security. This case involved clause (b). The Court emphasised that clause (b) requires two mandatory conditions: (1) the existence of a situation making an inquiry not reasonably practicable, and (2) recording of written reasons by the competent authority explaining that impracticability.

Applying these principles, the Court scrutinised the dismissal order and found that it did not record any concrete reasons demonstrating why an inquiry could not be held. The order merely observed that the alleged misconduct occurred during COVID-19, was grave, had tarnished the image of the police force, and that the petitioner was in custody. The Court held that neither the gravity of allegations nor the fact of custody, by themselves, justify bypassing an inquiry. Gravity may guide the quantum of punishment, but it is not a substitute for the statutory precondition of impracticability. In other words, the authority must show why, in the facts and circumstances, a reasonable inquiry could not be conducted—e.g., real threats to witnesses, a volatile situation making evidence-taking impossible, or specific material indicating that an inquiry would be frustrated. Mere assertions or impressions do not suffice.

The Court also pointed out that identification of the petitioner, his deployment location, the circumstances under which he allegedly went to the spot, and the alleged use or allocation of arms and ammunition were all matters that could be examined in a regular departmental inquiry, including through witness testimony. The possibility that the petitioner may not have been present at the critical time, or may have dissociated from wrongdoing by others, underscores why the inquiry safeguard exists: to prevent punishing the wrong person or imposing punishment without verifying material facts.

Thus, finding that the dismissal and appellate orders failed the constitutional test under Article 311(2)(b), the High Court set aside both orders. However, the Court did not direct immediate reinstatement. Instead, it directed the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision within eight weeks: either conduct a regular departmental inquiry or, if truly warranted, pass a fresh order invoking Article 311(2)(b) with adequate, reasoned justification showing why an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The Court stressed that the decision must be taken with due diligence and urgent dispatch.

This judgment strikes a balance: it condemns any alleged misuse of police power during a public health emergency, yet it reaffirms that constitutional protections cannot be discarded unless the State meets the strict preconditions prescribed by Article 311(2)(b). It reminds disciplinary authorities that “impracticability” is a factual, reason-based conclusion—not a label to be applied merely because allegations are serious or public sentiment is high.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Reinforces due process: Government employers in Bihar (and across India) must record specific, defensible reasons before invoking Article 311(2)(b). This protects public servants from arbitrary dismissals while keeping room for exceptions in truly exigent situations.
• Administrative discipline with fairness: Even in sensitive contexts like pandemic enforcement, disciplinary authorities must show why a fair inquiry cannot happen; gravity of misconduct alone is not enough.
• Guidance for police administration: Police leadership must document credible material—such as threats to witnesses or demonstrable impossibility—to justify skipping a departmental inquiry. Otherwise, dismissals risk being quashed, leading to delay and uncertainty.
• Public confidence: The ruling helps ensure that errant officers can be punished lawfully while innocent personnel are not condemned without the chance to defend themselves, thereby maintaining institutional legitimacy.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether dismissal without departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) was justified
  – Decision: No. The disciplinary authority did not record reasons showing that holding an inquiry was “not reasonably practicable.” Gravity of allegations and custody alone do not satisfy the constitutional requirement.
• Whether the appellate order cured the defect
  – Decision: No. The appellate authority also failed to address and record the necessary reasons for dispensing with an inquiry.
• Appropriate relief
  – Decision: Both orders were set aside. The Court directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider within eight weeks: either hold a regular inquiry or, if warranted, invoke Article 311(2)(b) afresh with a reasoned order demonstrating impracticability. No direction for immediate reinstatement was issued.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• (As reflected in the judgment record, the primary authorities considered and applied by the Court include the following Supreme Court decisions; the parties’ references are embedded within the Court’s analysis.)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 2 SCC 398 — Constitution Bench on Articles 309–311 and scope of dispensing with inquiry under Article 311(2).
• Satyavir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 555 — Interpreting the mandatory nature of Article 311(2) provisos.
• Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 362 — Dispensation must be based on sufficient materials; not on the ipse dixit of authority.
• Chief Security Officer & Ors. v. Singasan Rabi Das, (1991) 1 SCC 729 — Total absence of sufficient grounds to skip inquiry vitiates punishment.
• Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2006) 13 SCC 581 — Grave misconduct alone does not justify avoiding a formal inquiry; reasons must show real impracticability.
• Reena Rani v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 10 SCC 215; Risal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 13 SCC 244 — Principles reaffirmed on narrowly construing Article 311(2)(b).

Case Title

Rajnish Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Patna High Court)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8054 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 623

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjit Jha, Advocate
• For the respondents (State): AC to SC-8 (Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-8)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjODA1NCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-ito22CijFtg=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.