JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This writ petition arises in the following circumstances : Santosh Kumar, petitioner 1, and Sheshmani Misra, petitioner 2, were appointed as substitute khalasis by Staff Order No. 343, dated 1 May 1978 and Staff Order No. 590, dated 26 August 1976, respectively. They were later on posted as diesel cleaners by Staff Order No. 900, dated 24 October 1979 and Staff Order No. 697, dated 14 December 1977, respectively. The grade of diesel cleaner and khalasi was the same. Raj Kumar Shukla, petitioner 3, was also appointed as substitute khalast by Staff Order No. 472, dated 14 July 1976. He was promoted as basic tradesman on 9 April 1980. No order in connexion with the confirmation of petitioners 2 and 3 were issued but they were deemed to have been confirmed on completion of three years' service in their initial recruitment grade Petitioner 1 was appointed against a clear vacancy but his appointment was as substitute khalasi in a temporary capacity. 2. All these three petitioners were placed under suspension vide order , dated 9 August 1980. Along with the suspension orders a letter, dated 9 August 1980, was also annexed wherein it was mentioned that the petitioners had taken active part in the assault of Sri R. L. Khullar on 7 August 1980, at about 11.45 hours. Copies of those letters are annexures 4 to 6 to the writ petition. It was also mentioned in those letters that action against the petitioners under Para. 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (herein after called the rules), was proposed and that the petitioners were asked to show cause against the same. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 219 of 1980, in this Court for a writ of prohibition restraining the opposite parties from taking any action on the basis of those letters, annexures 4 to 6. This Court after hearing the parties passed the following order : "Sri Robin Mitra appeared but stated that he cannot accept notice without instructions. Let notices issue to the respondents. Meanwhile no final order under Para. 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioners shall be passed unless an order giving reason why it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry has been passed and communicated to the petitioners. Let notices issue to the respondents. Meanwhile no final order under Para. 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioners shall be passed unless an order giving reason why it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry has been passed and communicated to the petitioners. " A show-cause notice, dated 26 February 1981, was thereupon issued to the present petitioners vide, annexures 7 to 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners submitted their replies to the same vide annexures 10 to 12. Thereafter the impugned orders, dated 11 April 1981, dismissing the petitioners from service were passed vide annexures 13 to 15. Subsequently by orders, dated 25 June 1981, the orders of dismissal from service were converted into orders of removal from service vide annexures 16 to 18. The petitioners have alleged that they then filed departmental appeals against the said orders and then sent remainders to the authorities concerned. The petitioners had asked for a clarification and the Assistant Works Manager (Private) Loco Shops, Charbagh, Lucknow, intimated the petitioners that they had to submit reply to the charges levelled against them vide letters, dated 9 August 1980. The petitioners then submitted their reply vide annexures 28 to 30. The opposite parties have denied to have received from the petitioners annexures 19 to 21 or any memorandum of appeal. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the orders, dated 11 April and 25 June 1981, passed by the Assistant Works Manager (Diesel), Northern Railway, Locomotive Workshop, Charbagh, Lucknow, contained in annexures 13 to 18 to the writ petition and have asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat them in regular service and to pay regularly the due emoluments to them. The petition has been opposed and a counter affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder-affidavit was thereafter filed on behalf of the petitioners. Supplementary counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. It would be seen that action under rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was taken against each of the petitioners by the appointing authority. Rejoinder-affidavit was thereafter filed on behalf of the petitioners. Supplementary counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. It would be seen that action under rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was taken against each of the petitioners by the appointing authority. In other words, no disciplinary inquiry in the manner laid down in the said rules was taken ; rather, the appointing authority had come to the view that it was not reasonably practicable to hold disciplinary inquiry in the manner provided in the said rules and the petitioners were removed from service by the impugned orders. 4. For the petitioners it was urged that neither their dismissal nor removal from service was legal without following the procedure prescribed under rules 9 to 13 of the said rules and as the impugned orders were passed without following that procedure, the same were violative of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Further, it was urged that the reasons assigned in the respective appendices to annexures 7 to 9 do not make out any case for not holding the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under rules 9 to 13. Inc submission was that there were no valid and sufficient reasons for taking action under rule 14(ii) of the said rules ; hence the impugned orders were illegal and without jurisdiction. For the opposite parties it was submitted that there were valid grounds for taking action under rule 14 (ii) of the said rules and that the reasons were based on facts and circumstances relating to the incident of 7 August 1980, when Sri Khullar was assaulted culminating in an atmosphere of terror and intimidation prevailing in the workshop on account of which holding of an inquiry was not possible. It was submitted that in accordance with the orders of this Court, dated 14 August 1980, passed in Writ Petition No. 2195 of 1980, the railway administration was required to give reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. The same were also required to be communicated to the petitioners. Accordingly, show-cause notice, dated 26 February 1981, was issued separately to each petitioner giving reasons on the basis of the facts and circumstances on record as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioners. The same were also required to be communicated to the petitioners. Accordingly, show-cause notice, dated 26 February 1981, was issued separately to each petitioner giving reasons on the basis of the facts and circumstances on record as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioners. The said reasons are based on various incidents culminating in an atmosphere of terror and intimidation under which inquiry against the petitioners was not possible. The contention was that the various incidents go to show that the petitioners persistently and deliberately flouted all authority and discipline by threat and intimidation so much so that total lawlessness prevailed in the workshop as the authorities became helpless to take any action against them. Under the fear of threat neither any officer was willing to act as an inquiry officer nor any witness was forthcoming to depose against the petitioners. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be appropriate to examine, in brief, the scheme of the said rules. Rules 9 to 13 of the rules lay down the procedure for imposition of various penalties and the procedure for imposing major penalties and contain elaborate provisions which entitle delinquent railway employees to a complete disclosure of the charge, the grounds on which they are based and the material by which they are sought to be substantiated, a right to inspect the records to prepare defence, to submit a written statement of defence, to cross-examine witnesses, produce oral and documentary evidence and to being heard against the proposed penalty. Rule 14 contains special procedure to be followed in certain cases and is in the following terms: " 14. Rule 14 contains special procedure to be followed in certain cases and is in the following terms: " 14. Special procedure in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 9 to 13 : (1) where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules ; or (iii) where the President is satisfied that in tie interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules ; The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit : Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary before any orders are made in any case under this rule." Now resort to the provisions of rule 14(ii) may he had where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the rules. The reasons for reaching that satisfaction should be recorded by the disciplinary authority in writing. It would be seen that Cl. (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution confers a valuable right on a Government servant and he cannot be removed from service except after inquiry in which he is informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Rules have been framed in relation to various services under Article 309 of the Constitution which prescribe elaborate procedure for imposition of certain types of penalties on public servants. The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1963, have thus been made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rules 9 to 13 lay down the procedure for imposing major penalties against railway servants who are governed by those rules. It would be further seen that Cl. (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution provides that Cl. Rules 9 to 13 lay down the procedure for imposing major penalties against railway servants who are governed by those rules. It would be further seen that Cl. (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution provides that Cl. (2) shall not apply- " where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry." Similarly, Cl. (ii) of rule 14 of the said rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in rules 9 to 13 where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. The expression' "not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry" connotes that the holding of such an inquiry is not possible because of physical or legal impediments. According to Webster, "practicable" means "possible to practise or perform or capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished." The impracticability which would attract rule 14(ii) must have relation to holding of the inquiry. There should be materials for dismissal of the Government servant concerned and the material must be such which should be germane to the question that an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) or rules 9 to 13 of the said rules was not possible to be held. Satisfaction contemplated in rule 14(ii) is the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority. The Court is, however, entitled to enquire whether conditions precedent to the formation of such satisfaction have any foundation in good faith. Ever since the House of Lords decided Liversidge v. Anderson, 1942 A.C. 206, the consistent view has been that the state of a person's mind cannot be determined by the objective test and as long as the competent authority acts in good faith, its satisfaction cannot be assailed if the relevant materials upon which the validity of exercise of executive power is predicated are present. It cannot be gainsaid that any attempt to whittle down the constitutional safeguards will not be justified unless the circumstances enumerated in the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and incorporated under rule 14(ii) are strictly found to exist. The decision as to impracticability of the inquiry and reasonableness thereof is no doubt left to the dismissing authority but it is not immune from the judicial review of the Court if and when challenged. 6. Now, in the cases of the petitioners the disciplinary authority took resort to the provisions of rule 14(ii) of the rules. The reasons were recorded by the disciplinary authority and were communicated to each of the petitioners as would be evident from annexure A to each of the annexures 7 to 9 of the writ petition. By annexure 7 Santosh Kumar was informed of the reasons as to why the inquiry under the said rules cannot be held and he was requested to submit his explanation within ten days from the date of the receipt thereof. Similarly, by annexure 8 Sheshmani Misra was informed of the reasons as to why the inquiry under the said rules cannot be held. The reasons were mentioned in annexure A to annexure. Raj Kumar Shukla was also informed by annexure 9 as to why the inquiry under the said rules cannot be held. The reasons for the same were mentioned in annexure A to annexure 9. The said annexure A attached to annexures 7 to 9, respectively, mentions the facts on the basis of which the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not possible to hold the disciplinary inquiry under the rules. 7. In annexure A to annexure 7 it was mentioned that Santosh Kumar on 13 October 1978, led a violent demonstration in front of the then S. M.(W)'s chamber on an issue which involved reversion of one Assistant Works Manager. He was said to have damaged the door of the chamber extremely serious (sic) when not only the local company commander of railway protection force was summoned but also the flying squad of the police was summmed. He was said to have damaged the door of the chamber extremely serious (sic) when not only the local company commander of railway protection force was summoned but also the flying squad of the police was summmed. The then S. M. (W) had recorded in the file as follows : "As the matter stands in the shops, no one is inclined to give any evidence against them and normal D. & A. action against them is impossible due to lack of evidence." Santosh Kumar was said to be an associate of Sheshmani Misra and Raj Kumar and all of them invariably created disturbance. Then it was mentioned that on 23 October 1979, Santosh Kumar was associated with an ugly incident in which he assaulted Sri R.C. Khare in the office. It was also mentioned that be assaulted Sri Khullar, a senior most officer in the workshop, and that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Alambagh, had already recorded that the mood of the staff who had gathered around Sri Khullar was such that it would not be possible to get any independent witness in connexion with the assault. Shortly after the incident took place, the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Alambagh, on hearing the shouts ran from the room of Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer and noted that the mood of the staff who had gathered around Sri Khullar was such that it may not be possible to get any independent witness in connexion with the assault. On these facts the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not possible to hold the D. & A. inquiry. 8. Sheshmani Misra was also said to have led a violent demonstration in front of the then S.M. (W)'s chamber on 13 October 1978. He was also said to have taken part in the aforesaid incident which took place on 23 October 1978, when he along with Santosh Kumar and Raj Kumar Shukla had caught hold of Sri Khare from his collar and broke his pen in his office. He was said to have taken part in an assault of a very senior officer of the workshop, Sri Khullar, Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer. Further, it was mentioned that Sheshmani Misra was instrumental in manhandling supervisors in the diesel shop. This incident took place on 21 February 1950. He was placed under suspension from 22 February 1980. He was said to have taken part in an assault of a very senior officer of the workshop, Sri Khullar, Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer. Further, it was mentioned that Sheshmani Misra was instrumental in manhandling supervisors in the diesel shop. This incident took place on 21 February 1950. He was placed under suspension from 22 February 1980. A major penalty charge-sheet for removal from service was served on him but the inquiry could not proceed because of his threatening attitude towards the enquiry officer. He entered the office of the enquiry officer on 20 May 1980, with about twenty-five persons of his party and created an unwanted scene. He abused and shouted slogans. hence the inquiry had to be done away with. Ultimately he threatened the diesel supervisors who had reported against him and out of sheer fear they agreed to patch up the matter with Sheshmani Misra. The disciplinary authority observed that during the short period Sheshmani Misra had been in Charbagh shops, the history has been coloured with various incidents. He is a terror in the workshop and nobody dares to oppose him. He has taken the complete law in his own hands and that assault on Sri Khullar was the final culmination of his misdeeds when the senior most officer in the workshop had been insulted and assaulted. The disciplinary authority was, therefore, satisfied that it would not be possible to hold the inquiry. 9. Raj Kumar Shukla was also said to have taken part in a violent demonstration made in front of the S.M. (W)'s chamber on 13 October 1978, and in assaulting Sri R.C. Khare and Sri Khullar. It was also mentioned that V.K. Shukla was assaulted by him in the diesel shop on 25 June 1979, which led to the termination of his services but on the assurance of the Union he was taken back in service. The assault on Sri Khullar was said to be the culminating point. The disciplinary authority was satisfied that it would not be passible to conduct the inquiry. 10. The assault on Sri Khullar was said to be the culminating point. The disciplinary authority was satisfied that it would not be passible to conduct the inquiry. 10. A perusal of the said reasons as mentioned in appendix A to each annexures 7 to 9 would disclose that conditions precedent to the formation of the satisfaction have factual basis and that the materials upon which the opinion was formed by the disciplinary authority to the effect that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry against the petitioners in the manner provided in rules 9 to 13 did exist. It has not been made out that the disciplinary authority had acted in bad faith. In fact there is no allegation of mala fides against the disciplinary authority. We find no merits in the contention of the petitioners that the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority in the said appendix A were fallacious or superficial. We are also not prepared to accept the contention that the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority were wholly insufficient and were not valid. 11. No other ground was pressed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.