JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Whether the services of the petitioner as Manager of the Show Room of the Kanpur National Textile Corporation Ltd. situate at Govind Nagar, Kanpur, (a Government of India IJ ndcrtaking) (for short N.T.C.), has been legally terminated under R. 30(11) of the National Textile Corporation (U. P. Ltd. Employees Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, ( for short Rules), is the point for our consideration in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner Linder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-3-83 (Annexure 2 to the petition) and order dated 1-5-84(Annexure 5 to the petition) and for a writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner. 2. The portrayal of essential facts are these. The petitioner was appointed as a Sales Girl in the N.T.C. on 8-7-76 a nd was posted at Kanpur. On account of her excellent performance she was assigned the duty of in charge of the Show Room of Govind Nagar, Kanpur on 4-4-79 and was again promoted in 1981 as Manager of the same Show Room. Some complaints were received and grave irregularities pointed out against the conduct of petitioner as Manager of the Show Room. A raid was conducted by the authorities of National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd. Kanpur on 1(--3-83 and some irregularities were shown in the Show Room of the N.T.C. A complaint was lodged on 16-3-83 against the petitioner by the Manager) Marketing) of the N.T.C. and she was suspended by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the N.T.C. (vide Annexure 2 to the petition). An F.I.R. was also lodged on 18-3-83 at police station Harbans Mohal, Kanpur(Crime No. 96 of 1983 under S. -109. I.P.C.(vide Annex ure I to the petition)). Another application was made by the Manager (Intelligence). N.T.C. and F.I.R. was also lodged on 15-12-83. Instead of conducting proceedings for misconduct in pursuance of the charge-sheet served on the petitioner (vide Annexure 8 to the counter-affidavit her services were terminated by the impugned order dated 1-5-84 ( Annexure 5 to writ petition). 3. Another application was made by the Manager (Intelligence). N.T.C. and F.I.R. was also lodged on 15-12-83. Instead of conducting proceedings for misconduct in pursuance of the charge-sheet served on the petitioner (vide Annexure 8 to the counter-affidavit her services were terminated by the impugned order dated 1-5-84 ( Annexure 5 to writ petition). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner even though the charge-sheet was served on her and thereafter her services have been terminated arbitrarily purporting to,act under R. 30411) without affording any opportunity to explain charges or to defend herself, nor reasons were recorded that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry in the manner provided under the Rules. Further there was no evidence on record to indicate as to how the holding of enquiry was not reasonably practicable as provided under the Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that principle of natural justice is not an absolute Rule and it yields to and changes with the exigencies of situation and is also subject to modification by Statutory Rules. The provisions of Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution which is in part material with R. 30(11) rules out any opportunity of hearing in view of public policy. In paras 12, 14, 15 and 20 of the counter-affidavit details have been given indicating how the relevant authority has recorded reasons for being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under these Rules. It was further urged that provisions of R. 30(11) being in part materia with Article 311(2) second proviso, Cl. (b) of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 Lab IC 1393, Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 555 : 1986 Lab IC 1 and Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 617 : 1986 Lab IC 585. 5. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order under R. 30(11) of the Rules, the provisions of R. 30(II) are similar to the provisions of Article 311(2) second proviso, sub-clause (b) of the Constitution of India. 5. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order under R. 30(11) of the Rules, the provisions of R. 30(II) are similar to the provisions of Article 311(2) second proviso, sub-clause (b) of the Constitution of India. In fact Article 311 is an exception to the doctrine of pleasure contained in Article 310(1) of the Constitution but Cls. (1) and (2) of Article 311 restrict the operation of the doctrine of pleasure as regards civil servant by providing safeguard in those sub-clauses. The second opportunity before imposing penalty is not now necessary in view of 42nd Constitution Amendment Act 1976 which brought drastic change in clause (2) of Article 311. Now the result is that a civil servant has no opportunity to make representation with regard to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him. But 2nd proviso to Article 311 including Cl. (b) of the Constitution is in fact total exception to the 'Audi Alteram Partem' (hear the other side). In fact the second proviso to Article 311(2) is based on public policy. Rule 30 of the Rules in fact contains the provision similar to second proviso to Article 311(2). These provisions are mandatory. Rule 30(11) contains special provisions but in certain circumstances it becomes necessary that no opportunity be given to the employee concerned. This Rule in fact contains the exception to the normal Rule. In order to ensure that action has correctly been taken or the order has correctly been passed in view of R. 30 it is necessary to ascertain as to whether the conditions specified as contained under R. 30(11) of the Rules are strictly satisfied or complied with. It has to be seen under the circumstances as to whether, was it not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry against the conduct of the employee concerned. No exhaustive list can be enumerated in which it could be said that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Such cases in fact depend on the particular facts of the case. 6. The principles of natural justice are not an absolute rule as stated above rather those rules yield to and changes with the exigencies of different situation and do not apply in the same manner to the situations which are not alike. Such cases in fact depend on the particular facts of the case. 6. The principles of natural justice are not an absolute rule as stated above rather those rules yield to and changes with the exigencies of different situation and do not apply in the same manner to the situations which are not alike. This doctrine is in fact flexible and can be modified or excluded by Statutory Rules (See A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , AIR 1970 SC 150 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, J. Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572 (1576), Norwest Holst Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Trade, (1978) 1 Ch 201). 7. Now coming to the aspect as to whether it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the conduct of the petitioner. In Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 555 : 1986 Lab IC 1 it was held as follows : In respect of the situation in which it would not he reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry, "Where a civil servant particularly through or together with his associates. so terrorises. threatens or intimidates witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so. or (b) Where the civil servant by himself or together with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorises 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 he held. or (c) where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, it being immaterial whether the concerned civil servant is or is not a party to bringing about such a situation. In all these cases. -it must be remembered that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not" In Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 617 : 1986 Lab IC 585. the reasons for not holding the enquiry were not served on the petitioner and it was held that reasons can be served separately if there is some indication in the impugned order to show that the situation was such where the holding of enquiry would not have been practicable or possible. The following observations in this regard on page 621 (of AIR) : (at p. 589 of Lab IC) are material. The following observations in this regard on page 621 (of AIR) : (at p. 589 of Lab IC) are material. "The petitioner had been instigating others to indulge in acts of insubordination and indiscipline and were instigating them to withdraw from their lawful duties inciting them to violence and mutiny joining rioting mobs and participating in arson, looting and other criminal acts and were wilfully disobeying orders of their superior officers and that these acts had created a situation whereby the normal functioning of the force in Bombay had been rendered difficult and impossible, and that in view of these facts and circumstances, any attempt to hold a departmental inquiry by serving a written charge-sheet and following the procedure laid down in the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules. 1956. would be frustrated by the collective action of those persons and it was, therefore. not practicable to hold such an inquiry." 8. No doubt in respect of misconduct on the part of petitioner a charge-sheet (Annexure 8 to. Counter-affidavit) was served on her containing 10 charges. But the relevant authority did not conduct the enquiry in respect of the charges. The recording of the reason to dispense with an enquiry is a condition precedent. The firms involved in the racket did not cooperate with the Assistant Manager (Vigilance) who contacted various persons involved in her misappropriation of funds. The petitioner exercised her undue influence on anybody who wanted to come forward to depose in the matter. Other details of the circumstances have been given in Annexure 13 to the counter-affidavit including M/s. Kapoor Book Stall, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. who instead of coming forward to depose honestly sent a sikh gentlemen who alleged to be family-friend of petitioner, put pressure on Assistant Manager (Vigilance), in view of petitioner's unusual influence. Similarly in respect of cash memos falsely prepared by the petitioner, on account of' pressure she exercises and the influence she wields, no witness was available. In Annexure 14 to the counter-affidavit reference has been made about the cash memos used by the petitioner for alleged misappropriation. It was averred that to prove the case pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of public funds by Mrs. Pathak. recovery of some cash memos in the name of M/s. Kapoor Book Stall. Govind Nagar, Kanpur and five rubber stamps in the name of M/s. Harish Bijliwala, Punjab, Furnitures and Hindustan Furniture's etc. It was averred that to prove the case pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of public funds by Mrs. Pathak. recovery of some cash memos in the name of M/s. Kapoor Book Stall. Govind Nagar, Kanpur and five rubber stamps in the name of M/s. Harish Bijliwala, Punjab, Furnitures and Hindustan Furniture's etc. and that the cash memos issued by the firms concerned were not genuine, it was for the representatives of those Firms to come forward and speak truth. But they declined to come forward under the influence of petitioner. Similarly a number of other circumstances including day to day threats and interference by the well wishers of the petitioner have been pointed out by which it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. We are satisfied that the reasons have been recorded about the satisfaction in Annexures 13 and 14 (to the counter-affidavit) in order to exclude the enquiry as required by R. 30(11). Under the circumstances of the case it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under Rules 23, 24 and 25 etc. In Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 Lab IC 1393 (supra), it was observed under pars 59 page 1443 as follows :- "Clause (b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311 equally makes this clear when the power to dispense w khan enquiry is conferred by it upon the authority empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank a Government servant in a case where such authority is satisfied t hat for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry." 9. To sum up, the circumstances indicated in the impugned order clearly justified that as the witnesses were not prepared to come forward on account of influence and pressure exercised by the petitioner rather threats were being given to the enquiry officer, it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Withholding of witnesses or exercising pressure, influence and threats were sufficient ground where the holding of an enquiry could have been dispensed with. In other words in such situations it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. Withholding of witnesses or exercising pressure, influence and threats were sufficient ground where the holding of an enquiry could have been dispensed with. In other words in such situations it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. After perusing the impugned orders petition and Annexures 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit we are satisfied that under the circumstances of the present case it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. No allegations of ulterior motive have been made in the petition against the enquiry officer or any other relevant authority. The principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem' is not an absolute rule that in every case petitioner must be given opportunity of being heard particular circumstance may justify that it was not reasonably practicable to give an opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself or to lead evidence in support of her case. Further in view of larger interest particularly in view of public policy second proviso to Article 311(2) have been made by the founding fathers of the Constitution with a view to safeguard the interest of employer, may be the State Government, Union of India or any other similar authority. There may be cases where holding of an enquiry or affording of opportunity to the petitioner, as in the instant case, is not practicable. In such situation it cannot he said that the impugned order was invalid or illegal under the circumstances of the case. In view of the premises aforesaid we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed without any order, as to Costs.