SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.

The appeal is preferred against the order, dated 26.03.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No.8682 of 2012, whereby a learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant against punishment of dismissal passed under Rule 39(ii) of CISF Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service, primarily, on the ground that the reasons assigned for dispensing with enquiry under Rule 39(ii) of the Rules were not based on any cogent reasons, while dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge observed that “it cannot be said that the grounds, stated in the order of dismissal, were wholly non-existent for dispensing with the disciplinary proceeding”. Besides this, the learned single Judge also observed that no mala fide has been alleged against the disciplinary authority.

3. Before we consider the grounds of challenge in this appeal, it would be apposite to notice the relevant facts of the case in brief. The petitioner was a Constable in CISF and, at the relevant time, was deployed in “A” Coy of CISF Unit, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni. On the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 5.7.2010, he was assigned “B” shift duty from 1 pm to 9 pm at the Barauni unit for “gate checking”. The petitioner did not turn up for duty and allegedly remained absent without any intimation to, and prior permission of, the competent authority. He was also not found in the unit barrack. The Shift-in-Charge of the Barauni Unit made a general diary entry to the aforesaid effect at CISF Control Room of Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni. At about 3:00 PM on the same day, the police out post, FCI, Barauni intimidated the CISF Control Room, IOC, on telephone that at about 1.15 AM, the petitioner was apprehended by local people indulging in an act of molestation of a minor girl, aged about 12 years, with an intention to commit rape. The local people handed him over to the police. Simultaneously, on the written complaint of father of the victim, the police registered Barauni P.S. Case No.227 of 2010 for an offence under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and took him into custody. On the very next day of incident i.e. 6.7.2010, the appellant was dismissed from service by the Group Commandant, CISF, Group Headquarter, Patna, taking recourse to Rule 39(ii) of the Rules, which bestowed power on the disciplinary authority to dispense with departmental enquiry if, for reasons to be recorded, it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner as prescribed in the rules.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Group Commandant dismissing him from service, preferred departmental appeal, which was rejected on 9.9.2010. A revision application, preferred before the IG, CISF, too, was rejected by order, dated 30.10.2010. The writ application filed against order of dismissal also met the same fate on 26.3.2014 and, hence, this appeal.

5. The case of the appellant before the Writ Court was that the grounds, assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry under Rule 39(ii) of the Rules, was not based on sound reasoning. It was the further case of the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge that it was imperative and incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to demonstrate that the satisfaction was based on objective facts and it was not a mere outcome of the whims and caprice of the authorities concerned. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Jaswant Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors, reported in (1991)1 SCC 362. It has also been the case of the writ petitioner that the disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with the disciplinary enquiry lightly or arbitrary merely because the department’s case against the Civil Servant is weak. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the case of Satyavi