JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th June, 2019, whereby the Superintendent of Police, District Kota has passed an order dismissing him from service by taking recourse to Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (in short "the Rules of 1958"). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no attending circumstances which would have allowed the respondents to have initiated proceedings under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. It is further submitted that merely because certain cases have been registered against the petitioner under the various sections of IPC, it cannot be said that petitioner would not be available for departmental proceedings. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by this court in Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2017 (2) WLN 603 (Raj.) to submit that power in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958 cannot be exercised casually. 3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had already been granted bail by this court in criminal case and the petitioner ought to be given a chance to defend himself in the departmental proceedings. 4. The State has come in caveat and learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the petition and submits that petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 16.05.1993 and promoted to the post of Head Constable on 03.08.2009. The petitioner has been found to be involved in several criminal cases and has been absenting from duty several times. 19 recall notices have been issued to him and to his discredit total absence from service is for 590 days. That apart, the allegation against the petitioner is of very serious nature where he is found to be hand in glove with unsocial element of the societies, who are history-sheeters and also involved in land grabbing. He has terrorized other witnesses of the department and even the police is not ready to give evidence and taking into consideration the circumstances, the decision was taken by the authorities to pass an order under Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has also passed on original file and also pointed out that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was called for giving his statement but he has refused to attend the office. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has also passed on original file and also pointed out that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was called for giving his statement but he has refused to attend the office. The petitioner has also been declared absconder although learned counsel submits that order of declaring him absconder has already been stayed by this court in separate proceedings. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that petitioner has been tarnishing the image of the police by making comments on the social media and has been challenging the officers. 7. I have considered the submissions. Apparently, the petitioner appears to be having criminal record to his discredit. He is also found to be absenting from duty several times. Taking into consideration overall record of the petitioner, a decision has been taken by the S P, District Kota to dispense with the inquiry proceedings and has passed an order of dismissal from service by the impugned order dated 20th June, 2019. In the order, it has been stated that the petitioner is liable to influence other witnesses and even while under suspension, he has been found to be involved in blackmailing. 8. In Satyendra Singh (supra), this court has examined the law with regard to exercising of powers in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. It has been held that before exercising power therein, the concerned authority must show that it had taken into consideration all aspects and reached to subjective satisfaction that regular inquiry cannot be conducted. The dispensation of regular inquiry cannot be done on whims and fancies of the officers. Keeping the aforesaid if this court examines the order dated 20th June, 2019, it finds that the SP has taken into consideration various aspects and has also dealt with sensitivity of the case and has reached to its subjective satisfaction that inquiry in the normal course under Rule 16 cannot be conducted and has therefore, exercised its powers under Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958 and proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service. 9. This court also finds that as regards conduct of the petitioner as pointed out does not appear to be above board taking into consideration that he has been found to be actively involved for grievous offences, this court does not find that equity is in his favour. 9. This court also finds that as regards conduct of the petitioner as pointed out does not appear to be above board taking into consideration that he has been found to be actively involved for grievous offences, this court does not find that equity is in his favour. At the same time, this court is also of the view that it would not substitute its own opinion to that of disciplinary authority with regard to subjective satisfaction arrived at by him. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner. That apart, this court also finds that order dated 20th June, 2019 is appealable order and if at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to nature of punishment order, he is left free to take up the matter in appeal before the higher authorities which may take a decision thereto. Leaving the said aspect open for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.