JUDGMENT : D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 288/2021:- 1. Since it is pointed out that the appeal is filed within time, no order is necessary on this application. The application is disposed of. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 835/2021:- 2. This appeal is filed by the state government to challenge an order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the request of the State to vacate an ex-parte interim order came to be rejected. Brief facts are as under:- The respondent herein-original petitioner was engaged as a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Police service. On 25.02.2020, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service after dispensing with departmental enquiry in terms of further proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the said order he had cited elaborate reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge. By an ex-parte order dated 06.03.2020 the learned Single Judge stayed the order of dismissal. Resultantly the petitioner had to be reinstated in service after once having been dismissed. The State pursued its right to seek recall of the said order since it was passed ex-parte. For such purpose an application was filed before the learned Single Judge which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. In the order the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 362 which according to the counsel for the petitioner arose in identical facts. The learned Judge was influenced by the fact that the Superintendent had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 25.02.2020 and on the same day without waiting for the reply of the petitioner the order of dismissal was passed in which there was no mention of the show-cause notice. 3. Appearing for the State Government Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the competent authority has given sufficient reasons for dispensing with the enquiry. This was an exercise of the powers under the further proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The subjective satisfaction of the authority cannot be lightly interfered by the Court. Though, against such an order judicial review may be permitted, the order ought not to have been stayed. This was an exercise of the powers under the further proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The subjective satisfaction of the authority cannot be lightly interfered by the Court. Though, against such an order judicial review may be permitted, the order ought not to have been stayed. The learned Single Judge first stayed the order of ex-parte directions and thereafter refused to recall the order staying the dismissal. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent herein-the original petitioner heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jaswant Singh (supra). He further submitted that the petitioner has already been reinstated in service. The Superintendent has not stated proper reasons for dismissing the petitioner without holding an enquiry. The petitioner had clean record all throughout. He therefore requested that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. In our view the learned Single Judge ought not to have stayed the dismissal order. As noted, first a stay was granted by an ex-parte order and thereafter the request of the State to vacate ex-parte order came to be rejected. The learned Single Judge was influenced by two factors. The first was that the department had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 25.02.2020 and without waiting for his reply passed the order of dismissal in which there was no mention of show-cause notice. Second observation of the learned Judge was, that the show-cause notice as well as the order were both passed by the same officer and the numbers of the orders (for the office file) were 523 and 524 respectively. 6. In the order the learned Single Judge has not shown any relevance of the second observation namely of the show-cause notice and the dismissal order being passed by the same officer and orders carrying consequential serial numbers. We fail to understand the relevance of these observations. Obviously, the Superintendent as a competent authority, could have issued a show-cause notice and passed the order of dismissal. Coming to the substantial ground of refusing to vacate the stay, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that passing of the order of dismissal in quick succession after issuance of show-cause notice was an act of illegality. 7. Article 311 of the Constitution pertains to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. 7. Article 311 of the Constitution pertains to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. Clause (1) of Article 311 provides that 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. Clause (2) of Article 311 which is of relevance provides that no person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Further proviso of Article 311 provides that the said clause shall not apply, inter alia 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. The Superintendent of Police has invoked this power. Even if a show-cause notice was first issued to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police in our prima facie opinion was not precluded from invoking the powers under the further proviso to Article 311(2) if the sufficient material was available at his command. 8. Our further prima facie opinion is that the Superintendent had recorded elaborate reasons in the impugned order. The perusal of the dismissal order would show that the Superintendent had in his possession the information suggesting that the petitioner was in direct contact with certain criminal elements. When he was posted in district level team constituted for arresting criminals and to restrict organised crime, it was found that he was regularly in touch with such elements who were involved in liquor smuggling through mobile phone of his son and had uploaded several photographs with them on social media. The Superintendent therefore concluded that holding a department enquiry would be impracticable since the departmental witness would be persons with criminal antecedents. 9. It is neither necessary nor appropriate on our part to conclude whether the order passed by the Superintendent would eventually stand the test of law or not. The Superintendent therefore concluded that holding a department enquiry would be impracticable since the departmental witness would be persons with criminal antecedents. 9. It is neither necessary nor appropriate on our part to conclude whether the order passed by the Superintendent would eventually stand the test of law or not. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Superintendent for passing the said order is subject to judicial review inherent with all limitations. It is therefore not necessary for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the writ petition. However when it comes to the interim stage, in our opinion the learned Single Judge has committed a clear error. The damage that can be done to the petitioner by not granting stay can be largely compensated. On the other hand if the petitioner is allowed to continue on duty and eventually the order was to be upheld the damage done to the department cannot be undone. Balance of convenience is one of the prime considerations for grant or refusal of interim relief. In the present case, the same would lean heavily in favour of the department. Even otherwise on prima facie consideration the impugned order should not have been stayed. 10. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Jaswant Singh (supra) may aid the petitioner in the final arguments, cannot be the prime basis for staying the order. It was a case in which the Supreme Court had made certain observations with respect to the nature of powers of the competent authority under clause (b) of the further proviso to Article 311(2). 11. In the result the order dated 29.01.2021 is reversed. Resultantly the ex-parte order dated 6.3.2020 shall also stand vacated. Appeal stands allowed.