JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20/10/2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing order of dismissal, neither enquiry was conducted nor any charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The explanation sought from the petitioner was submitted by him. However, without making available copy of domestic enquiry report and only relying upon the domestic enquiry report and the complaint made by the Additional Superintendent of Police of allegedly speaking foul language on telephone, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed reply and it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that regular enquiry was contemplated under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 which has not been conducted and it is submitted that the respondents have conducted an in-house enquiry and the telephonic conversation was recorded and from its transcript, it is apparent that the petitioner has misbehaved with his senior officer and looking to the seriousness of the charge, the Superintendent of Police has taken decision. It is further submitted that being a police force, such action was to be dealt with and taken seriously. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the authority, while passing the order impugned dated 20/10/2016, has completely ignored the provisions of the CCA Rules of 1958. The punishment of dismissal from service is the most severe punishment which can be awarded under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules of 1958 and for awarding major penalties, procedure has been laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 which is of mandatory in nature and form. Only in extraordinary circumstances, the resort may be taken to exercise powers under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958. However, in the present case, it cannot be said that there was any circumstance under which the resort under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958 could be taken. Although it is noted that even Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958 has also not been pressed into operation. However, in the present case, it cannot be said that there was any circumstance under which the resort under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958 could be taken. Although it is noted that even Rule 19 of the CCA Rules of 1958 has also not been pressed into operation. It appears that a complete go-bye to the CCA Rules of 1958 has been attempted by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the order dated 20/10/2016 cannot be sustained. Even if there was serious allegation against any delinquent which may be of such a nature which may shock conscious of an authority, the provisions of the CCA Rules of 1958 cannot be given a go-bye. The power was available with the authority to take action against the petitioner under the said Rules including power under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958. However, it appears that the same were not brought to the notice of the concerned authority. In the circumstances, this Court sets aside the order dated 20/10/2016 being vitiated in law having not been passed in accordance with CCA Rules of 1958 and it is informed that during pendency of the writ petition, the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14/12/2016 and as such, the order dated 14/12/2106 dismissing the departmental appeal of the petitioner is also set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service on the post which he was holding prior to passing of the order impugned dated 20/10/2016 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances. 5. However, so far as the so-called allegations of misconduct are concerned, the respondents shall be free to frame definite charges alleging imputations in terms of the CCA Rules of 1958 and conduct enquiry in terms thereof. If such an action is proposed, it is directed that the petitioner shall be given fair opportunity to defend himself and the provisions of the CCA Rules of 1958 shall be strictly followed. Such an enquiry, if initiated, would be conducted and decided expeditiously in terms of the Circular issued by the State Government from time to time. 6. The writ petition stands accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.