P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to quash and set aside the order of dismissal passed on 7-5-1985 against the petitioners herein and to give them all benefits of service and backwages as if no order of dismissal has ever been passed against them. The Special Civil Application also prays that the power contained in proviso (b) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which is to the effect that 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 practiceable of hold such enquiry be declared as invalid and unconstitutional. The petitioners were unearned police constables in the Police Department of the State of Gujarat. In respect of an alleged common incident on 7-5-1985 wherein all the-c three petitioners are supposed to have taken part they were ordered to be placed under suspension by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 7-5-1985. The said order was served upon the petitioners at 9. 00 P. M. on 7/05/1985 At 11. 00 P. M. on 7-5-1985 another order passed by respondent No. 1 was served upon the petitioners herein and that order terminated the services of the petitioners. This order of termination is challenged by the petitioners in this Special Civil Application. ( 2 ) ONE Rajubhai Manilal gave a complaint stating that he was sleeping in his tea stall situated at Ajod Dairy road on the corner of Bhagyodaya Estate on the of 6-5-1985. Al about 5. 30 A. M. on 7-5-1985 the petitioners came to his stall. At that time the complainant had gone out for washing his hands and legs His father. his servant his uncle and his son were sleeping in the tea stall. When the complainant was returning after washing he witnessed that these three petitioners were beating his father. When questioned this complainant was also kicked by one of the policemen Thereafter the three petitioners according to the complainant opened his galla and took Rs. 400. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 lying in the said galla and also broke a glass pane. Subsequently these three petitioners went towards the hut near Smashan Gruh which is at a distance of 50 to 60 ft. 400. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 lying in the said galla and also broke a glass pane. Subsequently these three petitioners went towards the hut near Smashan Gruh which is at a distance of 50 to 60 ft. from the complainants tea stall and there they began beating the people. Hearing the shouts the military people came and arrested all the three petitioners herein. It is further stated in the complaint that these three Petitioners were in a drunken condition and the military van took these three petitioners leaving their cycles at the spot. The compliant Rajubhai Manilal Patel has also stated that the petitioners apart from beating number of persons in that locality have also beat one Tarachand and relieved from him a sum of Rs. 150. 00 ( 3 ) IT is the case of the first respondent that the petitioners leaving their respective places of duty unauthorisedly went to the pan and tea. stall and started heating the complainant Rajubhai Manilal Patel and his father without any cause. They also robbed Rs. 500. 00 from their tea stall and pan gallas. Further they also took away Rs. 150. 00 from one Tarachand and also heat him. It is further averred by the 1st respondent that the Petitioners went to one Pratapaji Gamnajis tea stall and robbed from him a sum of Rs. 740. 00. They also beat one Khemchand Bholarama and took away Rs. 35. 00 from him. Thereafter. these three petitioners went to Smashan Gruh area and beat the inmate of the huts situated therein without any reason causing various inquires to innocent people. It is further averred by the 1st respondent that Tarachand Jamnadas called the Military Officer that Military Officer by name Ramakrishnan questioned the 1st petitioner Govindbhai Muljibhai Parmar as to why he has beaten and robbed Rs. 150. 00 from Tarachand that on questioning the 1st petitioner herein admitted his guilt and returned the sum of Rs. 150. 00 to Tarachand. Thereafter the three petitioners were taken by Ramakrishnan the Military Officer and later handed over to the P. S. I. Patel of Gomtipur Police Station. The 1st respondent has further stated that on the complaint given by Rajubhai Manilal Patel a case was registered under sec. 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 00 to Tarachand. Thereafter the three petitioners were taken by Ramakrishnan the Military Officer and later handed over to the P. S. I. Patel of Gomtipur Police Station. The 1st respondent has further stated that on the complaint given by Rajubhai Manilal Patel a case was registered under sec. 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) (2) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act against these petitioners. Since serious allegations have been made against the petitioners who are police constables it is the case of the 1st respondent that these petitioners were suspended. After that on enquiry and strong evidence against them it was decided to remove them from service as the allegations were of very serious nature not befitting a Police Officer. Since during preliminary enquiry in view of the nature of his duty. Hence the authorities thought that it tioners have been substantiated an order of termination of service was passed against the purloiners herein. The 1st respondent has further stated that Ramakrishnan the Military Subedar is one of the most important witnesses in the case and that he has caught the petitioners and handed them over to the Police Station. According to the 1st respondent the evidence of the said witness i. e. the Military Subedar. will not be easily available in case of regular departmental enquiry in view of the nature of his duty Hence the authorities thought that it is necessary to take action against the petitioners under the existing law looking to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioners. Hence the statement of the Military Subedar was recorded by the Police Inspector Gomtipur who is a responsible gazetted officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Police has himself studied the enquiry papers thoroughly and after proper application of mind he has passed the dismissal order against the petitioners herein. It is further averred by the 1st respondent that the orders of suspension were passed against the petitioners on 7-5-1985 in the evening at about 5. It is further averred by the 1st respondent that the orders of suspension were passed against the petitioners on 7-5-1985 in the evening at about 5. 00 P. M. that those orders were serves upon them at 21-00 P. M. that thereafter enquiry report was received in which strong evidence against them was Wound including of army personnel no are not likely to be easily available for departmental enquiry or for giving their statements in Court of law and that therefore the authorities decided that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the said there constables and hence under the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India the order of dismissal from service was issued and the same was served upon them at 23. 00 P. M. Thus according to the 1st respondent the order of dismissal was passed after proper application of mind that after satisfying himself regarding the grievance of the offense as also it prima facie case against the petitioners as regards their serious and grave misconduct and that after taking into consideration the evidence led by P. I. Gomtipur Police Station during the preliminary enquiry. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder denying the allegations contained in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City ( 5 ) MR. Shethna he learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the submissions made by the petitioners in the petition and in the affidavit-in-rejoinder submitted that the respondents have invoked the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) in order to dismiss the petitioners arbitrarily and the respondents have mechanically stated that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioners herein. According to the learned counsel the evidence that was available at the time of suspension and dismissal would not have spelt out the robbery alleged to have been committed by the petitioners herein. It is an after-thought and evidence on record will amply bear out that the allegations of robbery of more than Rs. 1 0 cannot at all be sustained. Mr. Shethna further submitted both in the argument and also in the petition that the Military Subedar Ramkrishnan is still available at Ahmedabad and to state that it is not easily possible to procure the evidence of this Military Subedar Ramakrishnan for regular departmental enquiry is patently a misstatement. 1 0 cannot at all be sustained. Mr. Shethna further submitted both in the argument and also in the petition that the Military Subedar Ramkrishnan is still available at Ahmedabad and to state that it is not easily possible to procure the evidence of this Military Subedar Ramakrishnan for regular departmental enquiry is patently a misstatement. Even apart from this fact Mr. Shethna submitted that the witnesses whose evidence is necessary to prove the riotous behavior of the petitioners their drunkenness and the fact of robbery are all civilian witnesses who are easily available in the city of Ahmedabad. ( 6 ) MR. Gandhi the learned counsel appearing for the respondents after producing the necessary documents submitted that the 1st respondent has correctly invoked Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution to dismiss the petitioners herein since the evidence on record amply spells out that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry to the grave charges leveled against the petinoners herein. ( 7 ) WE have carefully gone through the records in this case. We do not think it is necessary to elaborately deal with statements of various witnesses to find out as to whether the offence has been made out or not. We are mainly concerned with the reassuring of the 1st respondent in denying an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. We have to find out as to whether the 1st respondent has mechanically stated that it is not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It we come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has arbitrarily and mechanically dispensed with the enquiry the order of dismissal invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) ONE Rajubhai Manilal Patel has given the First Information Report in this case. He speaks about the petitioners beating him his father and taking away Rs. 400. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 lying in the galla. He also speaks about the petitioners breaking the glass pane of his tea shop. The F. I. R. . further states that these three petitioners went towards Smashan Gruh which is at the distance of 50 to 60 it from his tea shop and beat the people there. 400. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 lying in the galla. He also speaks about the petitioners breaking the glass pane of his tea shop. The F. I. R. . further states that these three petitioners went towards Smashan Gruh which is at the distance of 50 to 60 it from his tea shop and beat the people there. It is at that point of time according to Rajubhai Manilal Patel the military people arrested these there petitioners and took them. This complainant also slates that these petitioners were in a drinking condition when they were taken by the military van. This complainant also states that he heard that these petitioners have snatched a sum of Rs. 150. 00 from one Tarachand. The Military Subedar Ramakrishanan in that a statement. No doubt there is no signature of the said Ramakrishnan in that statement. This statement also was recorded in Gujarati while it is stated by Mr. Shethna that this Ramakrishnan belongs to Madras Regiment and would not leave narrated the incident in Gujarati. It is seen from his statement that one scooterist came to his camp and told him that three policemen had beaten him and took away Rs. 140. 00 from him. Immediately this Subedar Ramakrishnan along with other staff members event in a motor van and found the three petitioners near Rakhial Crematorium Ground The scooterist who complained to this Subedar Ramakrishnan also followed him. Subedar Ramakrishnan was able to extricate the sum of Rs. 140. 00 from these three petitioners and paid it to the scooterist from whom it is alleged that the sum of Rs. 150. 00 was snatched away since many people from the public gathered there and complain against these petitioners alluring that these petitioners have beat them and snatched away money and jewels from them Subedar Ramakrishnan asked the petitioners to sit in the Military Van and took them to has superior Officer. Later these three petitioners were handed over to P. S. I. Shri Patel of Gomtipur at about 8. 15 A. M. It is also in the statement of the Subedar Ramakrishnan that when he made body search of these three petitioners he did not find anything With them. Later these three petitioners were handed over to P. S. I. Shri Patel of Gomtipur at about 8. 15 A. M. It is also in the statement of the Subedar Ramakrishnan that when he made body search of these three petitioners he did not find anything With them. Thus from the above said statement it is clear that Subedar Ramakrishnan gave the statement only on 8-5-1985 that he was not an eye-witness either to the riotous behavior of the petitioners herein or to the fail that these petitioners robbed I money and jewels from various persons and that this Subedar Ramakrishnan did not find anything from the body of these persons on searching them ( 9 ) THE 1st respondent by his order dated 7-5-1985 at about 9. 00 P. M. suspended these petitioners till the disposal of the case register in Crime Register No. 235 of 1985 of Gomtipur Police Station or by way of a departmental enquiry. In this suspension order the 1st respondent has also male provisions for subsistence allowance according to the Rules to these petitioners herein. This is Annexure A to the Special Civil Application. The Inspector of Police Gomtipur has given a Special Report as seen from the files. In this Special Report the Inspector of Police has stated:"the details of this offense is that the complainants tea-ketti at Ajod Dairy Road Sukhram Nagar Smashangurh Corner. Bhagyodaya Estate. In drunked condition the accused have beaten and injured to the complaint and others who were staying at round that area and looted money for Rs. 400/500 from complainant galla and also robbed money from other witnesses and then accused were arrested". In the copy of the Special Report the Inspector of Police Gomtipur has also stated that evidence is available in preliminary enquiry against these three petitioners for offense under sec. 394 and 114 of I. P. C. and also under sec. 85 (1) (2) and (3) and 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police. Gomtipur has suggested in his report that necessary departmental action may be taken against these three petitioners and immediate transfers of these three petitioners from the post may be effected. On this report. it is stated by the respondents order of dismissal was passed by 11. 00 P. M. (23. 00 hours) on 7-5-1985. The Inspector of Police. Gomtipur has suggested in his report that necessary departmental action may be taken against these three petitioners and immediate transfers of these three petitioners from the post may be effected. On this report. it is stated by the respondents order of dismissal was passed by 11. 00 P. M. (23. 00 hours) on 7-5-1985. The said order of dismissal reads as follows: o R D E R"you Unarmed P. C. Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Parmar B. No. 3838. Unarmed P. C. Shri Ramanbhai Keshavlal Parmar B. No. 6202 and Unarmed P. C. Shri Harshadhumar Ratilal Raval B. No. 7012 serving at Gomtipur Police Station have on 7 at about 5 30 A. M. On the Ajod Dairy Road. near Bhagyodaya Estate Rakhial Smashan Gruh beaten the complainant Shri Rajubhai Manilal aged 23 years residing at Radheshyam Society Bungalow No. 48 Odhav and his father and other persons in a drunken condition and caused them injury and broken the larry gallas and committed robbery which is a shameful act of serious nature which is not befitting to a Police Officer. For the said acts important witnesses are Jawans of Military who are engaged in the national defense who are not likely to be available easily as witnesses. Looking to the present disturbed condition of the city. regular departmental Inquiry is not reasonably practicable. Therefore i. J. Mahapatra Deputy Police Commissioner Ahmedabad City under Article 311 (2) dismiss A. P. C. Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Parmar B. No. 3838. A. P. C. Shri Ramanbhai Keshavlal Parmar B. No. 6202 A. P. C. Shri Harshadkumar Ratilal Raval B. No. 7019 from the services from the date of passing this order. Article 311 (2) (b) reads as follows: "311 No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced:eel in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of bring heard in respect or these charges. Article 311 (2) (b) reads as follows: "311 No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced:eel in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of bring heard in respect or these charges. Provided that where it is purposed after such inquiry to impose upon him any penalty such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: provided further that this clause shall not apply - (a) xxx (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss 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". This particular clause came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 . The minimal enquiry and the opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty on the basis of the applicability of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice founded in Challappans case reported in (1985) 2 SCC 358 was negatived by this decision by categorically holding that Challappans case in so far as it held that a Government servant should be heard before imposing a penalty upon him Was wrongly decided. The condition precedent for application of clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonable practicable to hold the enquiry contemplated by clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2 ). It would not be reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry where the Govern ment servant particularly through or together with his associates so terrorizes threatens or intimidates witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so or where the government servant by himself or together with or through others threatens intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so that he is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held. It would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails and it is immaterial whether the concerned government servant is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere. Thus the reasonable practicability of holding an enquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best judge of this clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on this question final. A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Departments case against the Government servant is weak and must fail. The above said principle stated by us is enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision in Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 . According to the Supreme Court the second condition necessary for the valid application of clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2 ). This is a constitutional obligation and if such a reason is not recorded in writing the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty fallowing thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court categorically held that the reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. Illustrating the same the Supreme Court observed that it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that the was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. In this decision the Supreme Court has held that the Court has power to consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not. In this decision the Supreme Court has held that the Court has power to consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not. It is observed by the Supreme Court:"the finality given by clause (3) of Article 311 to the disciplinary authoritys decision that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry is not binding upon the court. The court will also examine the charge of mala fides if any made in the writ petition. In examining the relevance of the reasons the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. If the court finds that the reasons are irrelevant then the recording of its satisfaction by the disciplinary authority would be an abuse of power conferred upon it by clause (b) and would take the case out of the purview of that clause and the impugned order of penalty would stand invalidated". It is further observed by the Supreme Court:" In considering the relevance of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority the court will not however sit in judgment over them like a court of first appeal. In order to decide whether the reasons are germane to clause (b) the court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a reasonable man acting in a reasonable way would have done. The matter will have to be judged in the light of the then prevailing situation and not as if the disciplinary authority was deciding the question whether the inquiry should be dispensed with or not in the cool and detached atmosphere of a court-room removed in time from the situation in question. Where two views are (possible the court will decline to interfere". In yet another judgment in Satyavir Singh and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCALE 488 Tulsirams case was Affirmed with further lucid explanation as to the circumstances in which such inquiry can be dispensed with. Where two views are (possible the court will decline to interfere". In yet another judgment in Satyavir Singh and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCALE 488 Tulsirams case was Affirmed with further lucid explanation as to the circumstances in which such inquiry can be dispensed with. In that decision it is observed by the Supreme Court:"21 The point which was next urged in support of the contention that the impugned orders were passed mala fide was that even though co-workers may not have been available as witnesses there were policemen and police officers posted inside and outside the building and they were available to give evidence and that superior officers were also available to give evidence. The crucial and material evidence against the Appellants would be that of their co-workers for these coworkers were directly concerned in and were eye-witnesses to the various incidents. Where the disciplinary authority feels that crucial and material evidence will not be available in an inquiry because the witnesses who could give such evidence are intimidated and would not come forward and the only evidence which would be available namely in this case of policemen police officers and senior officers would only be peripheral and cannot relate to all the charges and that therefore leading only such evidence may be assailed in a court of law as being a mere farce of an inquiry and a deliberate attempt to keep back material witnesses the disciplinary authority would be justified in coming to the conclusion that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The affidavit filed by the Joint Director Research and Analysis Wing Cabinet Secretariat Hari Narain Kak who had passed the impugned orders sets out in detail the various acts of intimidation violence and incitement committed by each of the Appellants. Copies of the written reasons for dispensing with the inquiry in the case of the Appellants have also been annexed to the said affidavit. It is clear from a perusal of the said affidavit and its annexures that the police officers policemen and senior officers could not have possibly given evidence with respect to all these acts. The said affidavit further states that the senior officers were also intimidated and were threatened with dire consequences if they gave evidence. It is clear from a perusal of the said affidavit and its annexures that the police officers policemen and senior officers could not have possibly given evidence with respect to all these acts. The said affidavit further states that the senior officers were also intimidated and were threatened with dire consequences if they gave evidence. Further grievances were made against the senior officers of the RAW in the said charter of demands Submitted by the said Association and the evidence of senior officers would have been attached as being biased and partisan. There is thus no substance in this point also". Bearing the above said principles laid down by the Supreme Court in our mind we have to find out as to whether the disciplinary authority has dispensed With the disciplinary enquiry lightly and arbitrarily as to whether the disciplinary authority vaguely after repeating the language in clause (b) of Article 311 has dispensed with the enquiry by stating that the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry and as to whether the reasons are irrelevant which will result in abuse of the power conferred upon the disciplinary authority by clause (b) of Article 311 (2 ). We must also find out as to whether the crucial and material evidence may not be available to hold the enquiry. ( 10 ) THE 1st respondent at about 9. 00 P. M. on 7-5-1985 suspended the three petitioners pending the case that may be filed on the strength of Crime Register No. 235 of 1985 and also pending the departmental enquiry. Within two hours thereafter the order of dismissal was passed by the 1st respondent which we have extracted in paragraph supra. It is true that if these there petitioners who are police constables have broken the larry gallas committed robbery and attacked the persons in a drunken condition it will be a serious offence. One Military Subedar Ramakrishnan took these three petitioners in the Military Van and handed them over to the Inspector of Police Gomtipur Police Station. It is interesting to note that the statement of this Subedar Ramakrishnan was recorded only on 8-5-1985 as per the records available and as admitted by Mr. Gandhi The learned counsel appearing for the respondents while the order of dismissal was passed on the night of 7-5-1985 itself. It is interesting to note that the statement of this Subedar Ramakrishnan was recorded only on 8-5-1985 as per the records available and as admitted by Mr. Gandhi The learned counsel appearing for the respondents while the order of dismissal was passed on the night of 7-5-1985 itself. Further the First Information Report and the statement of the Subedar Ramakrishna which was recorded on 8-5-1985 amply establishes that the witnesses who as speak to the acts alleged against the petitioners are civilian witnesses and as far as the military witness i. e. Subedar Ramakrishnan is concerned he only took the petitioners in van on the report of on scooterist. To allege that the important witnesses are Jawans of Military who are engaged in the national defense and who are not likely to be available easily as witnesses for the purpose of dispensing with the enquiry is a statement made by the disciplinary authority in a light-heated way and smells with arbitrariness in order to avoid holding of an enquiry. When important eye-witnesses and persons who have suffered in the hands of these three palliations are very much available it is understandable as to now the 1st respondent has stated that the important witnesses are Jawans of Military Department. The observation of the 1st respondent that looking to the present disturbed condition of the city the regular departmental enquiry is not reasonably practicable cannot be countenanced at all. The acts committed by the petitioners are distinct and independent offenses attributable to the petitioners concerned. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have created an atmosphere wherein no such departmental enquiry can be conducted. It is also not the case of the respondents that crucial and material evidence against the petitioners are tampered with or that witness es are threatened by the petitioners herein. The Supreme Court has categorically held that it examining the relevance of the reasons the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. On the facts of this case it is abundantly clear that the disciplinary authority. arbitrarily and and in order to avoid any departmental enquiry. came to the conthat it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. On the facts of this case it is abundantly clear that the disciplinary authority. arbitrarily and and in order to avoid any departmental enquiry. came to the conthat it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. Such reasons on the facts of the present case are irrelevant and the recording of its satisfaction is an abuse of power conferred upon it by Article 311 (2) (b ). The riotous situation prevailing in the City is not the making of the petitioners herein. Their acts are not relatable to the riots that prevailed in the City ar Ahmedabad. The complaint filed by one Rajubhai Patel according to the petitioners is borne out of enmity was taken as the basis for the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the petitioners. When the disciplinary authority has suspended the petitioners by 9. 00 P. M. why should in change its attitude within two witnesses and pass the order of dismissal on the same day. When the witnesses are easily approachable and the victims are very well available to speak about the atrocities committed by the petitioners. the disciplinary authority in a light-hearted way and in a mechanical fashion after observing that it is not reasonably practicable to holed the enquiry dismissed the petitioners herein. This attitude of the disciplinary authority cannot he appreciated at all and such arbitrary way of dispensing with the enquiry in our view results in misuse of the power conferred upon the disciplinary authority. On the facts and circumstances of the present case we are convinced that the leasons given by the 1st respondent to dispense with the enquiry while passing the dismissal order are irrelevant arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the power conferred upon it by clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution The disciplinary authority ought to have held the enquiry retaining the suspension order passed on 7-5-1985 which is Annexure A to the Special Civil Application Mr. Shethna the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press his point regarding the constitutional validity of the proviso to sec. 31 (2) (b) raised by him in prayer No. 11 (c ). Shethna the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press his point regarding the constitutional validity of the proviso to sec. 31 (2) (b) raised by him in prayer No. 11 (c ). ( 11 ) FOR all these reasons the order of dismissal dated 7-5-1985 marked as Annexure B to the Special Civil Application is set aside The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry retaining the suspension order dated 7 marked as Annexure A to the Special Civil Application. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the above extent. No costs. (ATP) petition allowed. .