JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present appeal, the present appellants, being original defendants, have challenged the judgment and order dated 21.08.2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.93 of 2006 by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Rajkot and judgment and decree dated 10.05.2006 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1075 of 1995 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 2.1 The plaintiff was serving as armed police constable in Rajkot City, under the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants kept prejudicial attitude towards him and suspended him from duty without sufficient cause and during suspension period, allowances were not paid to him. That, his superiors had given him threats that if he reported for duty, his legs will be fractured and therefore, being frightened, he was absconding and the defendants have illegally involved the plaintiff in false criminal cases. 2.2 Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know through news papers that procedure has been initiated to dismiss him from the services, but he is not intimated about the same in-spite of demands being made by him on 25.01.1994. Thereafter, the wife of the plaintiff also wrote a letter to the defendants on 03.10.1994 requesting the defendants to give information about the service of the plaintiff, but no attention was paid to such requests and by adopting prejudicial attitude/approach towards plaintiff, the defendants have dismissed the plaintiff from services. Thereafter, the plaintiff had issued a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the defendants on 04.04.1995 calling upon them to cancel, quash and set aside the penalty order of dismissal, but the defendants have not complied with the said notice. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of dismissal, plaintiff has preferred Regular Civil Suit No.1017 of 1995 before the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereby learned Civil Judge was pleased to partly allowed the suit by order dated 10.05.2006 and declared that the decision of defendant No.1 to dismiss the plaintiff from services, without holding departmental inquiry, was held to be illegal, unconstitutional and quashed and set aside the order of dismissal. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 10.05.2006 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1017 of 1995, the defendnats have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.93 of 2006 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Rajkot, whereby the learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 21.08.2007 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, in Regular Civil Suit No.1017 of 1995. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, the appellants have preferred present appeal. 3. Heard learned Counsels for the respective parties. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has submitted that number of cases relating to prohibition of liquor were registered against the respondent delinquent and charge-sheet was also filed and thereafter, competent authority opined that services of the respondent were not required and therefore, the respondent was dismissed from the service. Learned AGP invited attention of this Court to the order passed by the competent authority dismissing the services of the respondent as well as some of the offences registered at Pradhyumannagar Police Station vide Criminal Registers No.102/1982, 3/1987, 313/87, 166/88, 315/89, 4/1991, 102/91 etc. and further submitted that the respondent was arrested under the Prevention of Social Activities Act and therefore, when the competent authority is empowered to dismiss any employee, without holding any inquiry against the respondent, order of dismissal from service passed by the competent authority is just and proper. Learned AGP has further submitted that the competent authority was satisfied qua the reasons of involving in illegal activities by the respondent and registering certain offences before the police authorities, reasons were recorded in the order passed by the competent authority and therefore, it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry before passing of order. The authority has rightly passed order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. That, the learned trial Courts have committed grave error in not considering the submissions as well as evidence produced on record by the present appellant. The authority has rightly passed order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. That, the learned trial Courts have committed grave error in not considering the submissions as well as evidence produced on record by the present appellant. It is further submitted that though, the findings of both the trial Courts were that the service history of the respondent was not satisfactory, it was not necessary on the part of the appellant to hold any inquiry in the larger public interest and under that circumstances, if the offences are not proved or yet to be proved, looking to the entire behavior of the respondent, principle of natural justice would not be violated. Hence, it is requested by learned AGP to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No.1017 of 1995 dated 10.05.2006 as well as judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.96 of 2006 dated 21.08.2007, by the learned District Judge, Rajkot, by allowing this appeal. 5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Police Commissioner, Mr.T.S.Bisht, who passed an order of dismissal by applying Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India is against the settled principle of natural justice. That, even if the Police Commissioner has conferred with such extra ordinary powers without holding departmental inquiry, the appointing authority is empowered to dismiss any employee. It is submitted that there is one rider that if the Court demands, the competent authority is required to submit documentary proof upon which the competent authority arrived at its conclusion. That, in the instance case, neither the competent authority nor the equivalent competent authority had come forward with the case. That, only Clerk of the then Police Commissioner deposed before the Court on the basis of the documents available with him stating that the original plaintiff was directed to be dismissed from services. That, the trial Court has set aside the impugned order at Exh.31 dismissing the services of the plaintiff by issuing directions to initiate fresh inquiry granting fix time following principle of natural justice. That, the defendant has clearly failed to prove that it was not reasonable to hold any inquiry or practicable by the authority. That, the trial Court has set aside the impugned order at Exh.31 dismissing the services of the plaintiff by issuing directions to initiate fresh inquiry granting fix time following principle of natural justice. That, the defendant has clearly failed to prove that it was not reasonable to hold any inquiry or practicable by the authority. If, such was the situation of not holding the departmental inquiry, it was not practicable under Section 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and the Court would direct to initiate the inquiry. It was incumbent for the competent authority to initiate the inquiry against the defendant. That, no such procedure was followed by the defendant to initiate inquiry as required after the order passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff as well as appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed. No inquiry was initiated. That, the order passed by the Courts below are legal and valid and no interference is required. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having considered the facts of the case as well as submissions made by learned Counsel for the respective parties and material placed before the Court, it appears that vide Exh.31, on 06.12.1993, impugned order of dismissing from service of the plaintiff was passed by Mr. T.S. Bisht, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot. From perusing order Exh.31, it clearly transpires that DCP, Rajkot, in his capacity as delinquent authority of the plaintiff, exercised powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. In the impugned order of penalty, several criminal cases were referred. Those cases were registered against the plaintiff under the Provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Bombay Police Act, Motor Vehicles Act and Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act. In the impugned order, it was disclosed that criminal and anti social activities of the plaintiff befitting to armed police constable and plaintiff was repeating such offences one after another. It was further observed in the impugned order that on account of criminal and anti social activities, he was placed under suspension and was absconded and not available. As per the order and its observations, considering the history of the criminal offences, there was no improvement in the behavior of the plaintiff on account of remaining absconded. As presence was not available, it was not possible to initiate/conduct the inquiry against the plaintiff. As per the order and its observations, considering the history of the criminal offences, there was no improvement in the behavior of the plaintiff on account of remaining absconded. As presence was not available, it was not possible to initiate/conduct the inquiry against the plaintiff. It was further observed that it was not possible to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff and in such situations, defendant No.1 satisfied that the case of the plaintiff was fit case to exercise the powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. It was not reasonable and practicable to initiate/conduct the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, defendant No.1 passed order of dismissing plaintiff from the services of the defendant. 7. From the record, it appears that copy of memorandum of charge dated 28.06.1989 at Exh.30 issued by the defendant No.1 to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff was produced. It appears that in the said memorandum, particulars like list of documentary evidence on which the department intends to rely upon against the plaintiff and also the list of witnesses to be examined by the department against the plaintiff was produced. It was main contention of the plaintiff in the suit that before passing impugned order of dismissal, there was clear breach of principle of natural justice, as defendants have failed to follow the same by not giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. That, under Article 311(2)(b) of the constitution of India, the departmental inquiry can be dispensed with only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before it that it is not reasonably possible to hold the departmental inquiry. In the instant case, on the strength of criminal cases and considering the criminal and anti social activities of the plaintiff, memorandum of charge vide Exh.30 was prepared by the defendants and in the said chargesheet, the defendants have described documents on which they intended to rely upon and also witnesses to whom the defendants intended to examine in the departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. From the memorandum of charge issued against the plaintiff vide Exh.30, it can be said that the issuing authority did find it reasonable and practicable to hold a regular inquiry against the plaintiff. From the memorandum of charge issued against the plaintiff vide Exh.30, it can be said that the issuing authority did find it reasonable and practicable to hold a regular inquiry against the plaintiff. On the contrary, it was found by the authority that departmental inquiry was required to be initiated against the plaintiff and subsequently, prepared memorandum of charge to conduct regular departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. It appears that only because of the plaintiff being absconding, he may/would not remain present in the inquiry, department cannot be permitted to dispense with the inquiry on account of absence of the plaintiff or his non availability or on the belief that he would not remain present in the inquiry proceedings. If the plaintiff would remain absent or not cooperate in the inquiry proceedings by making his availability, he would face consequences thereof. Exh.30 shows initiation of departmental inquiry against the plaintiff by the defendants. Therefore, it can not be said later on by passing impugned order at Exh.31 that it is not reasonably practicable to initiate, hold and conduct the departmental inquiry against the plaintiff, as it was already started and thereafter, it was dispensed with. From the record it can be said that after framing of chargesheet against the plaintiff vide Exh.29, subsequently, defendant No.1 changed his stand stating in para 2 of the penalty order vide Exh.31 that he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. The trial Court has rightly held that before passing any order (either exonerating or holding the plaintiff guilty), the defendants ought to have held departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. That, presence of the plaintiff in the departmental inquiry or his availability would be decided by the plaintiff himself but, due to remain absent or making presumption of his non availability in the departmental inquiry, would not justify the action of the defendant No.1 to dispense with the inquiry and straight way passing an order of penalty vide Exh.31. In the order Exh.31, Deputy Commissioner, Mr. T.S. Bisht, who was important witness for the defendants, was dropped to examine in the suit to prove that no departmental inquiry was required against the plaintiff. While passing impugned order vide Exh.31, he must have subjectively satisfied himself as to ‘not reasonable or practicable’ to hold the inquiry against the plaintiff. In the order Exh.31, Deputy Commissioner, Mr. T.S. Bisht, who was important witness for the defendants, was dropped to examine in the suit to prove that no departmental inquiry was required against the plaintiff. While passing impugned order vide Exh.31, he must have subjectively satisfied himself as to ‘not reasonable or practicable’ to hold the inquiry against the plaintiff. He must have experienced which would have influenced him to dispense with the full fledged disciplinary inquiry against the plaintiff and would lead him to pass the order Exh.31 straight way. It appears from the record that in application Exh.42 submitted before the trial Court by the learned AGP seeking an adjournment on the ground that defendants wants to examine Mr. Bisht as witness in the case. Learned trial Court was pleased to grant the said application by permitting the defendants to examine the witness Mr. Bisht but, however, reasons best known to the defendants, this witness was not examined and purshish vide Exh.43 was submitted by the defendants closing their evidences. No justification was given by the defendants for dispense with the departmental inquiry and resorting to straight way passing of penalty order vide Exh.31 by invoking provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is undisputed fact that for the same charges, departmental inquiry was already started while issuing chargesheet at Exh.29 and prepared memorandum of charge vide Exh.30. The defendants have not satisfied the Court that it was not reasonable or practicable to hold the departmental inquiry against the plaintiff and therefore, it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 8. In case of Jashwantsinh Versus State of Punjab and Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 362 while dealing with the exercise of power as conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court thus held as under: “7. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the impugned order of dismissal dated April 7, 1981 and direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all monetary benefits as to pay, allowances, etc. available to him from the date of his dismissal. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the impugned order of dismissal dated April 7, 1981 and direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all monetary benefits as to pay, allowances, etc. available to him from the date of his dismissal. Needless to say that it would be open to the department, if it is so advised notwithstanding the lapse of time, to proceed with the two show cause notices dated April 4, 1981. The respondents will pay the cost of this appeal.” 9. Later on, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Risal Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 244 , in similar case, wherein Sub-inspector was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police invoking powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the order passed by Superintendent of Police is bereft of non ascribing of reason while passing an order of dispensing with inquiry which otherwise is a must defiantly invalidity such an action. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police dispensing with inquiry is totally unsustainable and is hereby annulled. Here also impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Exh.31 dispensing with inquiry is totally unsustainable and rightly annulled by the Courts below. Needless to say that respondents are not precluded from initiating the proceedings as provided under the law. However, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court would not be construed as mandate to the authorities to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff. 10. For the reasons stated and discussed in the judgment, this Court would not warrant any interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.1017 of 1995 dated 10.05.2006 as well as in the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Rajkot dated 21.08.2007. As admittedly, no departmental inquiry was initiated as required under Article 311(3) of the Constitution of India nor the author of the dismissal order dated 06.12.1993 was examined by the witness before the learned trial Court for not initiating departmental inquiry satisfying himself as it was not reasonably or practically possible to hold inquiry contemplated under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated.