The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, examined a dismissal order where the disciplinary authority had invoked the second proviso to Article 311(2) — allowing dismissal without inquiry when holding one is "not reasonably practicable." The Court held this is an exception, not a default option, and cannot be used as an administrative shortcut.
Article 310 embodies the doctrine of pleasure, under which civil servants hold office at the President's/Governor's pleasure. Article 311 cuts down this pleasure doctrine, guaranteeing a fair inquiry before dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. Proviso (b) to Article 311(2) is a narrow exception requiring written, recorded reasons showing genuine impracticability (e.g., terrified witnesses, breakdown of law and order) — not mere administrative convenience — and such satisfaction is judicially reviewable, also engaging Article 14's non-arbitrariness standard.
Remember: Article 310 (pleasure doctrine) vs Article 311 (safeguards); the three provisos to 311(2) — (a) criminal conviction, (b) impracticability, (c) security of State; and that proviso (b) demands recorded, objectively testable reasons, not formulaic recitals.