( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 herein was a Constable. A First information Report ( in short, fir ) was lodged against him on 19. 06. 1992 for alleged offence under Section 384/506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short, I. P. C. ). Prior thereto, he was charge-sheeted for absenting from duty without delivering certain important papers to the government counsel wherefor he was marked absent on 19. 06. 1982 w. e. f. 18. 06. 1982. Changes levelled against him were :-

"that he along with some other persons went to the "residence of one Shri R. K. Aggarwal, a Ghaziabad Development Authority contractor, in a Maruti Van ad demanded rs. 90,000/- from him at gun point and threatened that failing which his son would be kidnapped. They also left a telephone No. 722848 on which Shri Aggarwal had to contact them. The matter was reported by shri Aggarwal to the Police Station Kavi Nagar who traced the telephone to that of a property dealer based in Sector 23, Sanjay Nagar, ghaziabad. The premises of the said property dealer were raided by the Police and five persons, including Constable Inderjit Singh, respondent No. 1 herein, were apprehended and an FIR was registered. "

( 2 ) ON or about 29. 06. 1992, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal holding that a regular disciplinary proceeding is not reasonably practicable to be held inasmuch as in a case of this nature, it was not uncommon to find the complainants and witnesses turning hostile due to fear of reprisals. It was observed :-

"3. The circumstances of the case are such that holding of an enquiry against Const. Inderjit No. 1192/nw is not reasonably practical because it is not uncommon in such cases to find the complainants and witnesses turning hostile due to fear of reprisals. A lot of courage is required to depose against an ordinary criminal. Much more guts have to be shown to depose against a criminal in the robes of a police man who may lose his job on their statements. It will be too much to except ordinary citizens show this much of courage. "

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein did not prefer any statutory appeal against the said order, but filed an Original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi ( hereinafter for the sake of brevity to be referred as, the Tribunal ), which was marked as O. A. No. 2021 of 1982. The writ petitioner did not bring on record any material to show as to why it was not practicable to hold an enquiry against the respondents and an order in terms of proviso 2 (b) appended to Article 311 of the Constitution of India was required to be passed.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal, however, by reason of the impugned order dated 07. 11. 1997 held that no. sufficient material had been brought on record to justify such a stand taken by the petitioners therein. It was observed :-

"6. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties and we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed under proviso (2) (b) to Article 311 of the constitution of India is illegal and deserves to be set aside. The impugned order on the face of it clearly shows that the decision arrived at, namely, not to hold an enquiry, is not based on any material relevant to the case, available for the disciplinary authority, rather it was based on extraneous material, \ namely, the past experience of the disciplinary authority in other cases. The Hontole Supreme Court in jaswant Vs. State of Punjab 199. 1 (1) SCC 362 (para 5) has stated that in order to apply the protection available under proviso 2 (b) of the said Article to the order of dismissal, 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 whim or caprice. It is an essential requirement that the decision of the disciplinary authority must have independent material to justify the dispensing with the enquiry, envisaged under article 311 (2 ). "the learned Tribunal satisfied itself that th