Union Of India vs Om Prakash Tiwari 22 Wppil/30/2014 ... on 31 July, 2018
16. From the allegations in the FIR and the
subsequent charges framed during judicial
proceedings, the DA and the Appellate Authority held
the view that the conduct of the applicant was
unbecoming of a police official and they wanted to
impose exemplary punishment to the applicant so that
the rest of the police force would take note. From this it
is clear that the DA and the AA have concluded that
the allegations against the appellant stood already
proved. Grave misconduct is not a contingent condition
for invoking Article 311(2) (b). As it has been held by
the Apex Court in Tulsi Ram case(supra) and several
orders of this Tribunal cited by the counsel for the
applicant, what is most important factor in invoking
article 311(2) (b) is the reasonable satisfaction based
19
OA No.1038 of 2017
Court No.2 (item No.18)
on material facts that it is impracticable to hold
Disciplinary Proceedings. In the instant case, there
was no material on record to show that it not
practicable to hold departmental proceedings. The
impugned order just repeated "ad verbatim the phrase
"facts and circumstances of the case are such that it
would not be reasonably practicable to conduct a
regular departmental enquiry against the defaulter
constable as there is reasonable belief that the
defaulter will influence the statements/ deposition of
witnesses during DE proceedings and it will take a
considerable long period."