1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, assisted by Mr. Kamal Saxena, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Etc, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Geeta Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 to 3; as well as Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, appearing for private respondent No. 4. 2. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Superintending Engineer (Coord, and Trg.), Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated without holding any inquiry, thereby violating the provisions of rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and article 311 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, w.e.f. 15.4.1983. He was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD, in short) for a period of 1 year from 11.9.2008 to 11.9.2009. The period of deputation was subsequently extended with the consent of lending and borrowing authorities, i.e., Public Works Department and MCD, respectively, from 12.9.2009 to 11.9.2010; from 12.9.2010 to 31.3.2011; and from L4.2011 to 31-3.2012. 4. Prior to the expiry of the petitioner's period of deputation which was up to 31.3.2012, the respondent No. 3, viz., Superintending Engineer (Capital Circle), Public Works Department, wrote a letter dated 29.12.2011 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, MCD, asking to release the petitioner within March 2012, and directing the petitioner to report immediately. However, the Under Secretary, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide his letter dated 1.3.2012, addressed to the Administrative Officer of MCD, extended the period of deputation of the petitioner from 1 year beyond 31.3.2012, i.e., from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the respondent No. 3, i.e., Superintending Engineer, PWD. In spite of the aforesaid letter issued by the Under Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; the said Superintending Engineer issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.3.2012 asking the petitioner to give explanation for his failure to report for his duty in response to the Superintending Engineer's earlier letter dated 29.12.2011. In spite of the aforesaid letter issued by the Under Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; the said Superintending Engineer issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.3.2012 asking the petitioner to give explanation for his failure to report for his duty in response to the Superintending Engineer's earlier letter dated 29.12.2011. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on 2.4.2012, wrote a letter to the Administrative Officer, MCD, informing about the recall of his earlier letter dated 1.3.2012 whereby consent was given to extend the petitioner's period of deputation up to 31.3.2012. Consequently, the MCD was requested to release the petitioner immediately with a direction to report to the Superintending Engineer, for his duty. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not released by the MCD for the reasons based known to it. The petitioner gave reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 30.3.2012 seeking some time to get himself released from MCD and to report for duty to the Superintending Engineer concerned. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, PWD, issued a Memorandum dated 3.5.2012 asking the petitioner to join the office on or before 15.5.2012 and in case of his failure to do so, his joining report will not be accepted and he will be terminated from the service under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In the meantime, the MCD, vide Office Order dated 14.52012, which was issued on the basis of the earlier letter dated 1.3.2012 issued by the Under Secretary, PWD, extended the period of deputation of the petitioner up to 31.3.2013. On 15.5.2012, the Superintending Engineer concerned vide impugned order dated 15.5.2012, terminated the service of the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 6. The State respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in their counter affidavit, have substantially admitted the facts narrated by the petitioner in his petition. However, they have alleged that on 15.5.2012, the petitioner came to the office of the Superintending Engineer and refused to join his duties immediately. They have farther averred that the approval of extension of deputation period of the petitioner beyond 31.3.2012 by the Administrative Officer, MCD, was subsequently reviewed and cancelled vide letter dated 2.4.2012. However, they have alleged that on 15.5.2012, the petitioner came to the office of the Superintending Engineer and refused to join his duties immediately. They have farther averred that the approval of extension of deputation period of the petitioner beyond 31.3.2012 by the Administrative Officer, MCD, was subsequently reviewed and cancelled vide letter dated 2.4.2012. Cancellation order was issued due to shortage of officers and urgent demand of experienced and efficient officers to deal with the various works of the Department. The petitioner was asked to join and when he failed to join, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to him by the authority concerned. The petitioner in reply to the said Show-Cause Notice, prayed for few months' time. However, his request was not considered and subsequently, a memorandum was issued stating that extension of deputation period of the petitioner has already expired on 31.3.2012 and a direction was given to the petitioner to join the Public Works Department, on or before 15.5.2012. 7. The order of termination dated 15.5.2012, issued by the respondent No. 3, viz., Superintending Engineer, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CAPITAL CIRCLE, PWD, AP, TTANAG AR ORDER Whereas, Shri Rajan Tripathi, J.E.(C) Office of the Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, PWD, AP, Itanagar went on deputation service to the department of Municipal Co-operation of Delhi, New Delhi for a initial period of 1 year as per appointment order bearing No. MC-II/Engh.(HQ)/08/1699 dated 13.8.2008. And whereas, Sri Rajan Tripathi, J.E.(C) was relieved from the establishment of Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, PWD, AP, Itanagar on 3.9.2008 for his deputation service. And whereas, on his willingness and borrowing department's request, NOC was issued for extension of official's deputation period up to 31.3.2012. And whereas, this office had clearly explained the incapability of issuing NOC for further extension of deputation service and directed to report to the undersigned within March 2012 vide this office letter No. SE(Coord)/E-II/ 20/2011-12/4679 dated 29.12.2011. But, fails to do so. And whereas, he was served a Show-Cause Notice as to why action should not be taken against him as per CCS and CCA Rules for disobeying Government order vide this office letter No. SE(Coord)/E-II/20/2011-12/ 6194 dated 30.3.2012. But, fails to do so. But, fails to do so. And whereas, he was served a Show-Cause Notice as to why action should not be taken against him as per CCS and CCA Rules for disobeying Government order vide this office letter No. SE(Coord)/E-II/20/2011-12/ 6194 dated 30.3.2012. But, fails to do so. And whereas, he was served final memorandum with a direction to report to this office on or before 15th May, 2012 vide No. SE(Coord)/E-II/20/2012-13/161 dated 3.5.2012, failing which his joining report will not be accepted and his services will be terminated. But, he failed to comply with the same. Now, therefore, as per the above facts and under provision of rule -19 of CCS and CCA Rules, 1965, the services of Shri Rajan Tripathi, J.E. and of Arunachal Pradesh PWD is hereby terminated with effect from the afternoon on 15th May, 2012. Sd/-15.5.2012 (Er.K.Wage) Superintending Engineer (Coord, and Trg.)." 8. The reason for termination of service of the petitioner, in the aforesaid order, as reflected is that the petitioner was asked to join on or before 15.5.2012 vide final memorandum wherein it was specifically stipulated that on his failure to join on or before the date stipulated, the joining report will not be accepted and service of the petitioner shall be terminated. Since he failed to join on the date specified, his service was terminated w.e.f. 15.5.2012. 9. The State respondents have not disclosed any reasons for which the power under rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was exercised, terminating the service of the petitioner without holding any enquiry. 10. Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, corresponds to article 311 of the Constitution of India. Article 311, is quoted, hereinbelow, for better appreciation : "311. Dismissal, removal or deduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State, - (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a state or holds a civil post under the union or a state shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such enquiry, to impose upon him any such 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) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) 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; or (c) Where the President or the Governor, as me case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the state it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) if, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." 11. Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is same in substance as the second proviso to article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Rule 19(ii) of the said Rules of 1965, is detailed below : "19. (ii) 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, or....." 12. The scope of review of the order passed under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and article 311 of the Constitution of India, has been elaborately dealt with by the hon'ble Apex Court. The scope of review of the order passed under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and article 311 of the Constitution of India, has been elaborately dealt with by the hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Satyavir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 252 , it has been held that the disciplinary authority when it feels that it is not possible to hold any inquiry or that material evidence will not be available in an inquiry, because the witnesses who could give such evidence are intimidated and would not come forward or the situation may be such that no such inquiry was practicable, the authority may pass appropriate order after recording the reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the Rules. 13. In the cited case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , in paragraph Nos. 130 and 134, the Apex Court has observed, as under : "130. The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that 'it is not reasonably practicable to hold' the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of the article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words used are 'not reasonably practicable' and not 'impracticable'.... Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word 'reasonably' as 'in a reasonable manner: to a fairly sufficient extent'. Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause(b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view o f the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquire, but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given. What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view o f the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquire, but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given. It would not by reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry where the government servant, particularly, through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens or intimidate 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 be 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. In this connection, we must bear in mind that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not. The reasonable impracticability of holding an inquiry 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 that 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 Department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail. The finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority by article 311(3) is not binding upon the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned and in such a case, the court will strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing penalty." "134. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, fins a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with foe inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a re-petition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso, For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Sometimes a situation may be such that it is to reasonably practicably to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances." 14. In the case of Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 , the Apex Court in paragraph No. 12 has observed as under : "12. It is fairly well settled that the power to dismiss an employee by dispensing with an enquiry is not to be exercised so as to circumvent the prescribed rules. The satisfaction as to whether the facts exist to justify dispensing with enquiry has to be of the disciplinary authority. Where two views are possible as to whether holding of an enquiry would have been proper or not, it would not be within the domain of the court to substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authority as if the court is sitting as an appellate authority over the disciplinary authority. The contemporaneous circumstances can be duly taken note of in arriving at a decision whether to dispense with an enquiry or not. What the High Court was required to do was to see whether there was any scope for judicial review of the disciplinary authority's order dispensing with the enquiry. The contemporaneous circumstances can be duly taken note of in arriving at a decision whether to dispense with an enquiry or not. What the High Court was required to do was to see whether there was any scope for judicial review of the disciplinary authority's order dispensing with the enquiry. The focus was required to be on the impracticability or otherwise of holding the enquiry." 15. In the instant case, the petitioner vide memorandum dated 3.5.2012 was asked to join his parent Department on 15.5.2012. However, on the same date, the impugned termination order was issued by the authority concerned, dispensing with the inquiry. The impugned termination order did not contain the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner served under the MCD on deputation and he was not released by the MCD rather his period of deputation was extended by the MCD. 16. While applying rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record in writing its reasons for satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. 17. There is nothing on record to show that no inquiry was reasonably possible before termination of the service of the petitioner. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, for State respondents, has only tried to emphasize the sequence of the events leading to the order of termination. 18. In the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 362 , it has been held that the decision to dispense with the Departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse 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. In the counter filed by respondent No. 3, it is contended that the appellant, instead of replying to the show-cause notices, instigated his fellow police officials to disobey the superiors. It is also said that he threw threats to beat up the witnesses and the Inquiry Officer if any Departmental inquiry was held against him. No particulars are given. In the counter filed by respondent No. 3, it is contended that the appellant, instead of replying to the show-cause notices, instigated his fellow police officials to disobey the superiors. It is also said that he threw threats to beat up the witnesses and the Inquiry Officer if any Departmental inquiry was held against him. No particulars are given. Besides, it is difficult to understand how he could have given threats, etc., when he was in hospital. It is not shown on what material respondent No. 3 came to the conclusion that the appellant had thrown threats as alleged in paragraph 3 of the impugned order...... To put it tersely, the subjective satisfaction recorded' in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order is not fortified by any independent material to justify the dispensing with of the inquiry envisaged by article 311(2) of the Constitution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on this short ground alone the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. The Superintending Engineer vide his communication dated 3.5.2012 has urged the petitioner to join the duty by 15.5.2012. On the same day, i.e., 15.5.2012, the order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed. When and how the Superintending Engineer, i.e., the disciplinary authority affirmed the opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioner, have not been disclosed either in record or the affidavits sworn by the respondent authorities. 20. The respondent authorities did not consider and fail to appreciate the fact that the petitioner could not report for his duty in his parent Department, without formally released from the borrowing Department. The respondents ought to have asked the MCD to release the petitioner instead of terminating the service of the petitioner on his failure to join the Parent Department/Public Works Department, on the date fixed. 21. In view of the prevailing law, facts and circumstances, as narrated above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed. The impugned order dated 15.5.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3, viz., Superintending Engineer (Coord, and Trg.), Capital Circle, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, terminating the service of the petitioner Sri Rajan Tripathi, is, accordingly, hereby set aside and quashed. 22. The impugned order dated 15.5.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3, viz., Superintending Engineer (Coord, and Trg.), Capital Circle, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, terminating the service of the petitioner Sri Rajan Tripathi, is, accordingly, hereby set aside and quashed. 22. Situated, thus, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to immediately re-instate the petitioner in his service w.e.f. 15.5.2012 and pay him, without delay, all arrear benefits and other consequential service benefits. 23. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost.