ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the D.O. No. 108/2024, dated 22/23-1-2024 awarding penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and Rule 25 (ii) of TS Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 has been wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and consequently set aside the same; (ii) and with further direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service as Armed Reserve Police Constable, with all consequential benefits and; (iii) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2) Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Armed Reserved Police Constable on 04.11.2009 and while he was working with the Director of Armed Reserve, Medak District, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and another vide FIR No.254/2021 dated 14.03.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Sections 28 and 29 and Section 8 (c) of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’), he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.03.2021, due to which, he was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 19.03.2021 and his suspension was revoked on 06.01.2022. Further, an Article of Charge dated 05.05.2022 was issued against the petitioner under Rule 20 of TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, on the same set of facts i.e. he was involved in crime No.254/2021. Challenging the issuance of Article of Charge, dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.29456 of 2022 wherein this Court passed an interim order on 18.07.2022 granting stay of disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the issuance of Article of Charge, dated 05.05.2022, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.29456 of 2022 wherein this Court passed an interim order on 18.07.2022 granting stay of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, another criminal case is registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.364/2023 dated 25.12.2023 of Medak Town PS for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22 (c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, he was arrested on 28.12.2023 and remanded to judicial custody, due to which, again the petitioner was placed under suspension and respondent No.3 has also issued the impugned proceedings vide D.O.No.108/2024, dated 22/23-01- 2024 by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and Rule 25 (ii) of TS Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is beyond the provisions and is issued in gross and colourable exercise of administrative powers. Further, the contention of the respondents that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the disciplinary proceedings is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and no reasoning has been given as to why the departmental enquiry could not be undertaken by respondent No.3. Mere allegation in FIR without there being any corroborative evidence cannot permit respondent No.3 for invoking the extraordinary power under Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India. As such, the order of the Disciplinary Authority in dismissing the petitioner from service without holding a regular enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has further contended that the allegation of the respondents that the petitioner had terrorized and threatened the persons who are likely to give evidence against him and with a fear of reprisal, they are not coming forward to give evidence against him and there prevails a tense atmosphere in society because of the whole incident which is reflected when enquiry is made, is totally incorrect since the petitioner was in jail during subsistence of investigation and it is not practically possible for the petitioner to threaten the potential witnesses, while he was in jail. As such, the reasoning given by respondent No.3 for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction is nothing but colourable exercise of power and wholly unjustifiable. As such, the reasoning given by respondent No.3 for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction is nothing but colourable exercise of power and wholly unjustifiable. It is further contended that the entire allegations made against the petitioner are solely on the basis of the alleged confession made by the co-accused (A.2 to A.6) before the Police authorities. It is well settled law that any confession made before the Police authorities is inadmissible and has no evidentiary value. For this reason alone, the complaint against the petitioner and allegations raised against him under the provisions of NDPS Act are without any basis and is nothing but fabricated and unconnected material so as to implicate the petitioner and to deprive him of his livelihood for no fault of him and as an act of vengeance, the present impugned order has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service without there being any regular enquiry. 4.1) Learned counsel has further contended that the impugned proceedings are issued relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Mitter Gill v. Union Territory (Admn.), Chandigarh , AIR 2015 SC 1796 and by invoking sub-section (B) of Clause-3 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petitioner without conducting any disciplinary enquiry, which is wholly incorrect and the ratio in the said judgment cannot be applied in the given case. In the said case, only one inferior officer was available for deposing the statement in the general department and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority therein opined to dispense with the enquiry therein. But, in the given case charge sheet was issued on 05.04.2022 based on the preliminary enquiry report dated 19.04.2022 submitted after conducting preliminary enquiry on the incidents by examining and recording the statement of 7 witnesses. Therefore, had the Disciplinary Authority conducted a departmental enquiry, the petitioner had an opportunity to prove his innocence. Depriving the opportunity of proving his innocence in the enquiry alleging that it is reasonably not practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, is wholly incorrect. Further, no individual has deposed at his instance that he has threatened the neighbours during the enquiry. The whole preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry cannot be taken into consideration for issuing impugned proceedings. Further, no individual has deposed at his instance that he has threatened the neighbours during the enquiry. The whole preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry cannot be taken into consideration for issuing impugned proceedings. It is further contended that the respondents failed to give cogent reasons for invocation of Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India read with Section 25 (ii) of TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. Further, after issuing the charge memo dated 05.05.2022 on the ground that the petitioner was involved in NDPS Case and the said criminal case is still pending, even without waiting for the outcome of the said criminal case, the present impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is illegal, arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order dated 22/23-01-2024. 5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner should be fully aware of his duties and responsibilities as a Police Officer as per the existing penal and procedure laws as well as Telangana Police Manual. Despite the same, the petitioner was indulged in a grave remiss and inhuman conduct unbecoming of a police officer and thereby undermined the entire mandate of duties and responsibilities assigned to him as a responsible Police Officer. It is further submitted that in an earlier occasion also i.e. on 15.03.2021 the petitioner was arrested by Pet Basheerabad Police in connection with crime No.254/2021. Similarly, he was also involved in crime No.364/2023 of Medak Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22 (1) and 29 of NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner, being a member of the disciplined force, had exhibited gross misdemeanor, did narcotic drug business and involved in said crimes. Hence, there is no justification for his continuation in service as he has betrayed his duties and responsibilities placed upon him by law and Rules and had indulged in inhumane and heinous and grave acts, exhibited disregard to professional ethics and departmental procedures, indulged in narcotic drug business and involved in criminal cases. Due to his extreme out of the way act beyond permissible rules and becoming habitual offender, the department has sustained criticism and caused blot on its image in the Society. Due to his extreme out of the way act beyond permissible rules and becoming habitual offender, the department has sustained criticism and caused blot on its image in the Society. Continuing such officer in the Department may lead to further similar incidents and a stern action will only deter such acts. Therefore, the competent disciplinary authority i.e respondent No.3 has rightly passed the impugned dismissal order by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and Rule 25 (ii) of TS Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, holding that the regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner will not reasonably be practicable. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7) A perusal of the material on record reveals that while the petitioner was working as Armed Reserve Police Constable in Medak District, a case vide FIR no.254/2021 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station was registered against him for the offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. Thereafter, he was issued with an Article of Charge vide No.A5/MJPR/03/2021 dated 05.05.2022 was issued on the same set of facts. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.29456 of 2022 wherein this Court has granted interim orders dated 18.07.2022 staying the departmental proceedings. The record further reveals that subsequently another criminal case vide FIR No.364/2023 dated 25.12.2023 of Medak Police Station has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. In connection with the said crime, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.12.2023. Within one month thereafter, respondent No.3 has passed the present impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service by invoking the provision of Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and Rule 25 of TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, vide proceedings in D.No.108/2024 dated 22/23.01.2024. In connection with the said crime, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.12.2023. Within one month thereafter, respondent No.3 has passed the present impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service by invoking the provision of Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and Rule 25 of TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, vide proceedings in D.No.108/2024 dated 22/23.01.2024. 8) The main issue for consideration before this Court is whether the respondents are justified in dismissing the petitioner by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and Rule 25 (2) of the TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Mitter Gill’s case (referred supra) 9) Here, it is be noted that admittedly the charge memo dated 05.05.2022 was issued on the similar set of facts in connection with crime No.254/2021 dated 14.03.2021 wherein an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were also appointed vide proceedings dated 10.06.2022. Thereafter, this Court has granted interim orders in W.P.No.29456 of 2022 on 18.07.2022. The respondents have filed vacate stay petition in W.P.No.29456 of 2022 and the matter is pending before this Court for adjudication. While that be so, the present impugned orders are passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the petitioner from service invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and Rule 25 (2) of the TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, stating that the petitioner was again involved in similar offence. 10) At this juncture, this Court deems it apt to extract the relevant portion of impugned order, which reads as under: 10: WHEREAS, (a) in view of aforesaid repeated acts and misconduct of Sri M. Rama Krishna Goud ARPC 2248 of DAR Medak District to avoid a situation on that he cannot abuse his position in Police Department and with view to curb the Drug menace without further delay, it is necessary and justified to dismiss him from service under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution, without holding disciplinary enquiry. (a) Whereas, on second test to be satisfied for passing an order under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution to dismiss an employee without holding an enquiry, it is revealed during enquiries that Sri M. Rama Krishna Goud, ARPC 2248 of DAR Medak District terrorized, threatened and intimidated persons, who are likely to give evidence against him and with fear of reprisal they are not coming forward to be witnesses against him. Moreover, there prevails a tense atmosphere in the society because of the whole incident which is reflected when inquiry is made. Thus it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the Sri M. Rama Krishna Goud, ARPC 2248 of DAR Medak District. (b) Having considered the entire situation, the competent authority is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable, to hold a departmental proceeding against Sri M. Rama Krishna Goud ARPC 2248 of DAR Medak District, in terms of the mandate contained under article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.” 11) From the above, it is clear that the only reasons assigned by respondent No.3 for invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India are that during the enquiry, the petitioner has terrorized, threatened and intimidated the persons who are likely to give evidence and with fear they were not coming forward to give evidence. It is to be seen that admittedly the respondents have conducted preliminary enquiry in connection with involvement of the petitioner in crime No.254/2021 and thereafter a charge memo dated 05.05.2022 has also been issued to the petitioner. However, the departmental proceedings are still pending due to the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.29456 of 2022. This Court is unable to understand as to when the witnesses have deposed in the preliminary enquiry without any fear, on what basis respondent No.3 has concluded in the impugned order that with fear of reprisal the witnesses are not coming forward to be witnesses against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the respondents for invocation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are unsustainable under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the respondents for invocation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are unsustainable under the law. 12) It is relevant to state that in similar circumstances, in Jaswanti Singh v. State of Punjab , (1991) 1 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “…The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer…” 13) Similarly, in V.Bhushanam v. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Vijayawada , 2003 (3) ALD 150 , this Court held that the action of the disciplinary authority in dispensing with the departmental enquiry against petitioner therein was totally unjustified and illegal. In the said case, a charge was framed and thereafter without conducting enquiry, the special provision was resorted to dismiss the employee from service. 14) Suffice it to state that repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters within which powers under Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India can be invoked. But, it is unfortunate to note that despite such clear judicial pronouncements, the disciplinary authorities continue to exercise those powers unjustifiably, thereby depriving their officials fair opportunity to defend themselves. 15) That apart, during the subsistence of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.29456 of 2022, passing of the impugned dismissal order is unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside. 16) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order vide D.O.No.108/2024 dated 22/23.01.2024 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.