( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr. Shah waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, appeal is taken up today for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE appellant, being aggrieved by an order passed by the learned single judge on 22/06/1998 in Special Civil Application No. 5609 of 1985, has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE short facts, as it emerges from the record, are as follows : the appellant, who was discharging his duties as Railway Protection Force constable, was served with a show-cause notice Annexure-A to the petition, dated 26/09/1985, inter alia, alleging that the appellant was stationed at veraval during the period 30/31-8-1985 and, during that period, he in collusion and active connivance with Shri Ganga Ram and Shivpal Singh abused his position and as a Railway servant failed in his duties to prevent the theft of steam coal committed at Veraval. The competent authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided under Rule 44 of the R. P. F. Rules, 1959 and, on satisfaction being reached, the facts referred to hereinabove were accepted to be correct and show-cause notice was given to the appellant, as to why penalty of dismissal should not be imposed. The learned single Judge was of the view that the appellant-petitioner has been given an opportunity to represent his case before the appropriate authority and petition is filed only against the show-cause notice under Rule 47 (b) of the R. P. F. Rules, 1959. As observed by the learned single Judge, it was filed at a premature stage. The learned single Judge further observed that it is also a premature stage to arrive at a finding that the competent authority was not justified to dispense with the inquiry and that the notice is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. By dismissing the Special Civil Application, interim order passed by the court stood vacated.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the respondents that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition as it was at a premature stage and, therefore, interference is not called for in the instant case. It is required to be noted that the provision of dispensing with the inquiry is akin to the provision as found in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Second proviso refers that the clause pertaining to holding an inquiry shall not apply where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. So far as Rule 47 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 is concerned, it reads as under :-"special procedure in certain cases : notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 44, 45 and 46, where a penalty is imposed on a member of the force (a) on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or (b) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. "relying on this Rule 47, on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the reasons are recorded which are produced along with the Special Civil Application at page 13. Reading the reasons, it appears that there was theft of steam coal. According to the information, that was continuous activity at Veraval and that too, with the active connivance of R. P. F. staff. Therefore, special party was directed to keep secret watch in Loco Shed at Veraval on 31-8-1985. Two women carrying steam coal in gunny bags were seen at about 10. 30 hours and, on seeing the members of the special force, they ran towards the hutments, leaving the steam coal there. On successfully apprehending the culprits, huge quantity of steam coal lying close to the hutments as w