As per case facts, the appellant, a police constable, was dismissed from service without a departmental inquiry, with the authorities invoking Article 311(2) proviso (b) due to an alleged reasonable ... belief of threat and intimidation to witnesses by the appellant and his associates. This dismissal occurred while the appellant was in custody. The CAT and High Court upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to appeal, contending that the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry were flimsy and lacked material evidence, especially given his incarceration. The question arose whether the disciplinary authority's decision to bypass a regular departmental inquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) was justified by sufficient, relevant, and objective material demonstrating that holding such an inquiry was not reasonably practicable. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the disciplinary authority's order was passed without proper application of mind and lacked concrete material to support the claim that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The Court emphasized that mere belief or presumption is insufficient to waive due process, particularly when the appellant was in custody. It held the dismissal order arbitrary and unconstitutional, reinstating the appellant with notional benefits and restricted back wages, while allowing for a fresh departmental inquiry.