The three petitioners are members of Nagaland Armed Police Force. They belong to 1st Battalion of Nagaland Armed Police. At the relevant time they were posted at Chalkot Village. Petitioner No. 1 was L/Naik, petitioner No. 2 was Havilder and petitioner No.3 was ABSI at the relevant time. They were dismissed from service by an order dated 23rd July, 1993 passed by the second respondent under Rule 11 (ii) of the Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1967 dispensing enquiry. The impugned order runs as under : "ORDER In the wake of an attack on the Jaljike Sub-Division, ABSI Satkolam Kuki and 20 others were sent to Chalkot village by giving a specie task of protecting the life and properties of the villagers from the depradation and attack of the armed unlawful elements. It was on the part of ABSI Satkolam Kuki and his men to ensure relentless vigilance and alertness to perform the specific task given to them. On 14,6.93 at about,1715 hrs an armed gang of anti-social elements came to Chalkot village and attacked the civilians of the village. The armed gang also had set fire on dwelling houses and granary of the villagers. On being warned by the said gang of anti social elements to run away from the area, the, NAP personnal ran away and deserted the post. ABSI Satkolam Kuki along with his men under his command deserted the post leaving behind 5 rifles, 1 Beyabot, 1 Stengun, 2 Sten magazines, 35 rounds of 9 mm balls 60 rounds of 303 BDN and 1 WI set (Passaphane) instead of making an attempt to counter the attack of the armed gang and in the process the armed gang took away the arms and ammunition and other Government properties which were on their charge. This act of the part of ABSI Satkolam Kuki and the men under his command exhibit cowardice and negligence to duties as a member of the Police Force. Thus because of their cowardice and negligence to duties 32 houses and 8 granary houses were set on fire by the anti-social elements and killed 5 persons including one Policemen who was caught by UGs in the incident. The misconduct stated above on the part of ABSI Satkolam Kuki and all his men under his command call for a very serious disciplinary action. The misconduct stated above on the part of ABSI Satkolam Kuki and all his men under his command call for a very serious disciplinary action. For the purpose of collecting evidence in a departmental enquiry that may be held, it is not possible to secure the presence of the members of the armed gang involved in the murder and arson in Chatkot village and no eye witnesses from the said Chalkot village could be obtained as they had deserted the village after seeing the killing of their village folk and even those eye witnesses remaining in the village are in a state of shock and are unable to4 tender evidence. In the light of the above circumstances I came to the conclusion that it is considered not practicable to hold an enquiry against ABSI Satkola Kuki and his men under his command. The place was also visited by IGP (R) and myself. The platoon was at a height and the UGs had collected villagers in the open ground thereby giving at actical advice to the post but no member of the force reacted. Platoon Commander, ABST Satkolam Kuki did not display the qualities of leadership and displayed cowardice in so much that he even did not protect the wireless set which was given to him. Similarly, Havildar Hotrengba Yimchunger and L/Naik Throttgji Yimchunger also displayed lack of leadership and cowardice. Thus the whole platoon of NAP ran in utter confusion. The party thus failed to protect the village and have brought a bad name to the department by conduct unbecoming of Police officers. Thus keeping above things in mind and the fact that no enquiry is possible, I hereby order under Rule 11 of Nagaland Civil Service (Conduct and Appeal) Rules that 1. ABSI Satkolam Kuki of 1st NAP, 2. Havildar Hefrongba Yimchunger of 1st NAP, 3. L/Naik Throngji Yimchunger of 1st NAP of dismissed from service from the date of receipt of this letter/order. Sd/SC Tripathi Director General of Police Nagaland, Kohima." 2. The aforesaid impugned order has been challenged on the ground firstly, that in fact if the enquiry is held, it would reveal the actual facts as under what circumstances the members of the force could not repulse the attack by the under-grounds. Sd/SC Tripathi Director General of Police Nagaland, Kohima." 2. The aforesaid impugned order has been challenged on the ground firstly, that in fact if the enquiry is held, it would reveal the actual facts as under what circumstances the members of the force could not repulse the attack by the under-grounds. Secondly, the order of dismissal is discriminatory as only the services of the petitioners have been dismissed, whereas other members of the force who were similarly situated with the petitioners have been let off. Thirdly, the order of dismissal was passed on the whims and caprice of the disciplinary authority thereby abusing the process of the power. 3. Mr. K. Meruno, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits (hat, from Annexure 1 to Annexure 20 of the counter, it reveals that some preliminary enquiry has been conducted which would show that if a regular departmental proceeding is conducted, they could have collected more evidence so as to enlighten the factual position of the incident in which petitioners could have participated by defending themselves. However, this has not been done, and instead the disciplinary authority adopted a short cut method to punish the petitioners. The disciplinary authority was of the opinion that under the circumstances mentioned in the impugned, order it would not be possible to collect evidence if a regular departmental enquiry is held. Even if assuming the statements recorded in a preliminary enquiry is taken into consideration, it speaks volume against the petitioners. This apart, the petitioners could not have improved their case with regard to the factual position as mentioned in the impugned order even if the regular departmental proceeding is held. In the instant case the facts speaks for itself (res ipso laquitor). I am afraid, under the present facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners could have improved their case if the regular departmental enquiry was held. 4. Next it is contended by Mr. Meruno that the disciplinary authority must before resorting to Article 311 (2) clause (b) have an objective satisfac­tion of the facts. I am afraid, under the present facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners could have improved their case if the regular departmental enquiry was held. 4. Next it is contended by Mr. Meruno that the disciplinary authority must before resorting to Article 311 (2) clause (b) have an objective satisfac­tion of the facts. In this connection he has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & others, (1991) 1 SCC 362 wherein the Apex Court had held in paragraph 5 as follows : "Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipso dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer." 5. The ruling cited by the counsel is of no assistance to the petitioners case, because the disciplinary authority has recorded its objective satisfaction as under: ''For the purpose of collecting evidence in a departmental enquiry that may be held, it is not possible to secure the presence of the members of the armed gang involved in the murder and arson in Chalkot village and no eye witnesses from the said Chalkot village could be obtained as they had deserted the village after seeing the killing of their village folk and even those eye witnesses remaining in the village are in a state of shock and are unable to tender evidence." The aforesaid reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority for dispen­sing with the departmental enquiry, in my view, clearly established the objective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority and it is not warranted for interference. 6. 6. Further it is revealed from the impugned order that the place of incident was visited by the disciplinary authority himself and, the disciplinary authority has held, "that the platoon was located at the height and the under­grounds had collected villagers in the open ground thereby giving tactical advice to the post but no member of the force reacted." This objective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority recorded on the inspection of the place of occurrence cannot be interfered with lightly. Therefore, in my view the dismissal of the petitioners services by disciplinary authority dispensing with the enquiry is passed on the objective satisfaction of facts and after recording proper reasons. 7. Mr. EY Renthungo, learned Junior Govt. Advocate submits that the disciplinary authorities satisfaction regarding non-availability of witness on account of fear cannot be said to be vitiated by abuse of power by the disci­plinary authority. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Ikramnddin Ahmed Borah Superintend­ent of Police, Darraog & others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 663. In the said case it been held by the Apex Court in paragraph 133 of the judgment as under : "One of the illustrations justifying clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) being invoked, as indicated above, is the non-availability of the witnesses on account of fear of the officer concerned. In the instant case as is apparent from the impugned order of dismissal this was the main ground for invoking the said clause (b). On the material on record, it is not possible for us to take the view that there was an abuse of power by the disciplinary authority in invoking clause (b). The Superintendent of Police who passed the order of dismissal was the best authority on the spot to assess the situation in the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the view taken by the Superintendent of Police in this behalf. As pointed out in the case of Tulsiram Patel in such matters, the Court will not sit in judgment over the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority for invoking clause (b) like a Court of first appeal and that even in those cases where two views are possible, the Court will decline to interfere. As pointed out in the case of Tulsiram Patel in such matters, the Court will not sit in judgment over the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority for invoking clause (b) like a Court of first appeal and that even in those cases where two views are possible, the Court will decline to interfere. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the second submission either?' 8. Another contention of Mr. K. Meruno that the petitioners are discri­minated inasmuch as the other members of the force who were equally situated with the petitioners have been let off without any punishment has also no merit, because the petitioners are not equally situated with other members of the force inasmuch as the petitioners are in rank of ABSI, Havildar and L/Naik respectively and manning the post. They were the commanders of the, post, whereas the other members of the camp are constables. In a disciplined force it is commanders who are the moral boosters of the force and the other members of the force act under the commands and orders of the commanders. In this situation it cannot be said that the petitioners are equally circumstanced with the other members of the force. In view of what has been stated above, there is no merit in writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.