B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.1997 (Annexure.3), by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the respondent No. 3 without holding an enquiry, by resorting to the provisions of Clause (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; and dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure.6), by which his appeal has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 as not maintainable.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, who was employed as Stenographer (Grade I) in the Office of the Director, Arid Forest Research Institute (A.F.R.I.), Jodhpur, has been removed by the impugned order dated 20.12.1997 without resorting to Rule 19(2)(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the CCA. Rules'). Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.3.1998 as not maintainable, hence this petition. REQUIREMENT FOR SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION : The issue of resorting to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time and again and it has been laid down that the existence of the circumstances mentioned therein is a condition precedent to resort to this exceptional and extraordinary procedure. The normal rule to deal with a delinquent employee is to hold enquiry under the Statutory Rules and only in exceptional circumstances Departmental Enquiry may be dispensed with. The Apex Court has considered, from time to time, the circumstances in which the waiving of normal rule of enquiry was found justifiable and in others based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations.
(3.) IN Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh 1998 (3) SCC 68, the Supreme Court considered the case wherein the Superintendent of Police, intelligence, had reported that the delinquent was 'a terror in the area' and he had 'intimidated the complainant' who appeared to be visibly terrified of the delinquent and the persons present there had left the place being terrified by the threats hurled out by him. Such an instance happened in the year 1991 when the State of Punjab was facing problem of terrorism. The Court held that the Authority was justified in taking the view that it was not 'reasonably practicable' to hold enquiry against the delinquent.;