ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 1/3/2021 passed by Superintendent of Police, Pali, District – Pali, whereby, exercising power under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules, 1958’) while dispensing with the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958, petitioners have been dismissed from service. Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner Amloo Ram under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1958 has also been rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur by order dated 12/10/2021. 2. The petitioners, who were working on the post of Constable, were issued notices for preliminary inquiry indicating that they were having contact with Jagdish @ Jambaram Devasi through Whatsapp calling & chat and the said contact is against the discipline of police force and on the basis of said allegation, explanation were sought from the petitioners. The petitioners responded to the same. 3. The additional Superintendent of Police, Bali submitted a preliminary inquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Pali on 1/3/2021 and the Superintendent of Police, Pali, without initiating any inquiry against the petitioners, while exercising powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 dismissed the petitioners from service by orders dated 1/3/2021. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner Amloo Ram filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1958 before the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, which was dismissed on 12/10/2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the order of dismissal dated 1/3/2021 is in gross violation of provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 5. It is submitted that for proceeding under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958, the disciplinary authority is required to be satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958, however, no such satisfaction has been recorded. 6. Submissions have been made that the indication made by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 1/3/2021 is an empty formality and on that count the orders impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. 6. Submissions have been made that the indication made by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 1/3/2021 is an empty formality and on that count the orders impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Further submissions have been made that the circumstances of the case did not warrant exercise of powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 as neither any charge sheet was issued nor any attempt was made to undergo the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the circumstances, as indicated under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 existed for dispensing with the requirement of holding an inquiry, and on that count the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. On notice being issued, a reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia producing the preliminary inquiry report holding the petitioners guilty of the allegations. Whereafter, by way of an additional affidavit, further material was produced seeking to substantiate the preliminary inquiry report and the fact that the conduct of the petitioners has been such that they are not entitled to any relief from the Court. 9. During the course of hearing, as in the orders dated 1/3/2021, the disciplinary authority had indicated that the holding of regular inquiry against the petitioners under the Rules was not reasonably practicable & impossible, for which detailed reasons have been indicated in the file, learned counsel for the respondents, by order dated 27/4/2022, was directed to produce the requisite material on record. Pursuant thereto, learned AAG, on 11/5/2022 filed additional affidavit producing the note sheet/copy of the entire file of the department leading to passing of the order dated 1/3/2021. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that from the order impugned dated 1/3/2021, the reply filed by the respondents and the material produced pursuant to the order of the Court, it is apparent that the respondents have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, the orders dated 1/3/2021 stand vitiated and deserve to be quashed & set aside. 11. 11. Submissions have been made that raising similar issues, the petitioner Amloo Ram filed appeal before the appellate authority, which authority has not even looked into the said aspects and has rejected the appeal by order dated 12/10/2021 and, therefore, on the said ground the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 12. Reliance has been placed on Reena Rani vs. State of Haryana & Ors. : (2012) 10 SCC 215 , Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. : (2005) 11 SCC 525 , Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punujab & Ors. : (2006) 13 SCC 581 and Banwari Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2014 (4) WLC (Raj.) 337. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions that looking to the conduct of the petitioners, whereby, while working as Constable, they have indulged in gross misconduct and are involved with hardcore smuggler and criminal, the action taken by the respondents is justified in the circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the power under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 has been rightly exercised by the disciplinary authority looking to the misconduct of the petitioners, which aspect is fully substantiated from the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bali filed along with the reply and, therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve dismissal. 14. Reliance has been placed on Union of India & Anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel : (1985) 3 SCC 398 . 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. Based on the serious allegations coming to light against the petitioners, who were working as Constable, the petitioners were called upon by notice dated 18/2/2021 to respond to the allegations, which was responded by the petitioners. Whereafter, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bali submitted a preliminary inquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Pali on 1/3/2021 inter alia coming to the conclusion that the conduct of both the petitioners shows their involvement with criminal elements, unfaithfulness towards the police department, irresponsibility and indiscipline. The same was also accompanied by the draft charge sheet, memorandum of charges along with documents and statement of witnesses for appropriate action. 17. The same was also accompanied by the draft charge sheet, memorandum of charges along with documents and statement of witnesses for appropriate action. 17. However, apparently, the disciplinary authority by its order impugned dated 1/3/2021 i.e. same day, inter alia came to the conclusion and passed the order as follows: ^^Jh veywjke dkfuLVscy 952 o Jh Hkh;kjke dkfuLVscy ua- 274 ds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1958 ds rgr of.kZr fu;fer ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr :i ls vlk/; ,oa vO;kogkfjd gS foLr`r dkj.kksa dk ladyu o mYys[k i=koyh ij fd;k x;k gSA** ^^vr% v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ] jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1958 ds fu;e 19 (ii) }kjk Ánr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, nksuksa dkfeZdksa Jh veywjke dkfuLVscy 952 o Jh Hkh;kjke dkfuLVscy ua- 274 dks jkT; lsok ls c[kkZLr (DISMISSED FROM SERVICE) djrk gwWA ljdkjh yoktek onhZ] cstst ,oa csYV ftyk oL= Hk.Mkj esa tek fd;k tkos] vxj dksbZ cdk;k jkf'k olwy dh tkuh gS] rks dh tkosaA** 18. Identical order was passed in the case of petitioner Amloo Ram. Amloo Ram filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur and inter alia raised specific issue pertaining to the lack of circumstances for dispensing with the inquiry. However, the appellate authority, without dealing with the issue raised, came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was justified. 19. When the matter came up before the Court, after reply & additional affidavit were filed by the respondents, on 27/4/2022 the Court passed the following order: “During the course of submissions when it became apparent that despite specific challenge laid by petitioners to non recording of reasons for dispensing with the inquiry under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCA Rules, 1958, no reply to the said challenge was given by the respondents and though the Disciplinary Authority had indicated in its impugned order dated 01.03.2021 that the reasons have been recorded in the file, no material was produced by the respondents despite grant of time by order dated 06.01.2022 to place on record further material over and above the reply, learned counsel for the State prayed for time to produce the requisite material on record. The prayer at such belated stage normally cannot be countenanced, however, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted.” 20. The prayer at such belated stage normally cannot be countenanced, however, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted.” 20. Pursuant thereto, as noticed hereinbefore, learned AAG has produced copy of the entire file, wherein, the preliminary inquiry was initiated and the same ultimately led to passing of the impugned order of dismissal along with the order sheets etc. 21. The provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1958 reads as under: “19. Special procedure in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 16, 17 and 18 (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to him conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow such procedure, the disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it may deems fit: Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary. Note: If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give any person an opportunity of showing cause under clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss, or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be subject to only one appeal to the next higher authority.” (emphasis added) 22. A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that by way of exception, special procedure has been prescribed inter alia where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstance of the case and pass such orders as it may deems fit. 23. The provision is specific and requires recording of reasons by the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules. 24. 23. The provision is specific and requires recording of reasons by the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules. 24. A perusal of the order impugned dated 1/3/2021, quoted hereinbefore, would reveal that the disciplinary authority being well aware of the requirements of Rules 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 indicated that holding of inquiry was impracticable and also indicated that detailed reasons have been indicated on the file. However, a perusal of the file as produced by learned AAG clearly indicates that there is no material available on record in this regard rather not a word has been indicated qua the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. 25. As noticed, though along with the report of preliminary inquiry, draft charge sheet, memorandum of charges, statement of witnesses etc. were all enclosed by the officer holding the preliminary inquiry, the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry have not been recorded and, therefore, there is a clear violation of provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar (supra) inter alia came to the following conclusion: “5. It is now established principle of law that an inquiry under Article 311(2) is a rule and dispensing with the inquiry is an exception. The authority dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) must satisfy for reasons to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. A reading of the termination order by invoking Article 311(2)(b), as extracted above, would clearly show that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The reasons disclosed in the termination order are that the complainant refused to name the accused out of fear of harassment; the complainant, being a foreign national, is likely to leave the country and once he left the country, it may not be reasonably practicable to bring him to the inquiry. This is no ground for dispensing with the inquiry. On the other hand, it is not disputed that, by order dated 23-12-1999, the visa of the complainant was extended up to 22-12-2000. Therefore, there was no difficulty in securing the presence of Mr. Kenichi Tanaka in the inquiry.” 27. This is no ground for dispensing with the inquiry. On the other hand, it is not disputed that, by order dated 23-12-1999, the visa of the complainant was extended up to 22-12-2000. Therefore, there was no difficulty in securing the presence of Mr. Kenichi Tanaka in the inquiry.” 27. Similarly in Tarsem Singh (supra), a case of constable against whom serious allegations were there, it was inter alia laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “12. Even the Inspector General of Police in passing his order dated 26-11-1999, despite having been asked by the High Court to pass a speaking order, did not assign sufficient or cogent reason. He, like the appellate authority, also proceeded on the basis that the appellant was guilty of commission of offences which are grave and heinous in nature and bring a bad name to the police force of the State on the whole. None of the authorities mentioned hereinbefore proceeded on the relevant material for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case sufficient cause existed for dispensing with the formal enquiry.” 28. Similarly in the case of Reena Rani (supra), again a case of a Constable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the following conclusion: “7. In the order of dismissal, the Superintendent of Police has not disclosed any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that the order of dismissal does not contain the reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry against the appellant. He also admitted that no other record has been made available to him which would have revealed that the Superintendent of Police had recorded reasons for forming an opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry for proving the particular charge(s) against the appellant.” 29. In the case of Banwari Lal (supra), again a case of sub- Inspector and Constables, this Court, even in a case where some reasons were indicated, came to the conclusion that same were not founded on valid reasons permissible under law, set aside the order of punishment. 30. In the case of Banwari Lal (supra), again a case of sub- Inspector and Constables, this Court, even in a case where some reasons were indicated, came to the conclusion that same were not founded on valid reasons permissible under law, set aside the order of punishment. 30. So far as the judgment in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) is concerned, the same has upheld the validity of the provisions providing for dispensing with the inquiry, however, the said judgment nowhere provides that requirement of recording of satisfaction in writing can be given a go-bye. 31. In the present case, as noticed hereinbefore, there is no reason worth the name indicated for dispensing with the inquiry and, therefore, in view of express provisions of law and various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the order impugned passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. 32. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The orders impugned dated 1/3/2021 passed by the disciplinary authority in both the writ petitions and order passed by the appellate authority dated 12/10/2021 in SBCWP No.16751/2021 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. However, it would be open for the respondents to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioners, if they so desire. The payment of back wages shall abide by the result of such inquiry. Such an inquiry, if any, must be initiated as expeditiously as possible.