The Supreme Court of India on 12 March 2026 ruled that a government servant cannot be dismissed without a departmental enquiry unless the authority provides concrete material showing that such an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. The judgment restored the service of a Delhi police constable who had been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on a mere presumption of witness intimidation. Key Developments The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the High Court and CAT orders dismissing the constable. The Court held that invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso requires documented evidence, not mere speculation. The dismissal order was declared illegal and the constable was reinstated with continuity of service. Back wages were limited to 50% from the date of dismissal to reinstatement, reflecting the pending criminal case. The Court clarified that reinstatement does not bar a future regular departmental enquiry. Important Facts The constable, serving in the Special Cell of Delhi Police, faced an FIR for robbery and conspiracy. While in custody, the DCP dismissed him under Article 311(2) (b), citing possible witness intimidation. No specific instances or material evidence were recorded to substantiate this claim. The constable challenged the dismissal before the CAT , which rejected his plea. The Delhi High Court also dismissed his writ petition, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. UPSC Relevance This judgment underscores the procedural safeguards embedded in the Indian Constitution for civil servants, a frequent topic in GS Paper II – Polity . Understanding the scope and limits of Article 311(2) and its exceptions is essential for questions on administrative law, service conditions, and the balance between disciplinary powers and individual rights. The case also illustrates judicial review of executive actions, a core theme in governance and constitutional law. Way Forward Administrative authorities must maintain documented, objective material before invoking the exception under Clause (b). Future disciplinary actions should ensure a transparent preliminary enquiry, even when a criminal case is pending, to avoid judicial overturning. For aspirants, focus on the interplay between constitutional provisions, statutory tribunals like the CAT , and the Supreme Court’s role in safeguarding procedural fairness.