JUDGMENT :

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 288/2021:-

1. Since it is pointed out that the appeal is filed within time, no order is necessary on this application. The application is disposed of.

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 835/2021:-

2. This appeal is filed by the state government to challenge an order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the request of the State to vacate an ex-parte interim order came to be rejected. Brief facts are as under:-

The respondent herein-original petitioner was engaged as a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Police service. On 25.02.2020, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service after dispensing with departmental enquiry in terms of further proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the said order he had cited elaborate reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge. By an ex-parte order dated 06.03.2020 the learned Single Judge stayed the order of dismissal. Resultantly the petitioner had to be reinstated in service after once having been dismissed. The State pursued its right to seek recall of the said order since it was passed ex-parte. For such purpose an application was filed before the learned Single Judge which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. In the order the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 362 which according to the counsel for the petitioner arose in identical facts. The learned Judge was influenced by the fact that the Superintendent had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 25.02.2020 and on the same day without waiting for the reply of the petitioner the order of dismissal was passed in which there was no mention of the show-cause notice.

3. Appearing for the State Government Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the competent authority has given sufficient reasons for dispensing with the enquiry. This was an exercise of the powers under the further proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The subjective satisfaction of the authority cannot be lightly interfered by the Court. Though, against such an order judicial review may be permitted, the order ought not to have been stayed. The learned Single Judge first stayed the order of ex-parte directions and thereafter refused to recall the order staying the dismissal.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent herein-the original petitioner heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jaswant Singh (supra). He further submitted that the petitioner has already been reinstated in service. The Superintendent has not stated proper reasons for dismissing the petitioner without holding an enquiry. The petitioner had clean record all throughout. He therefore requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

5. In our view the learned Single Judge ought not to have stayed the dismissal order. As noted, first a stay was granted by an ex-parte order and thereafter the request of the State to vacate ex-parte order came to be rejected. The learned Single Judge was influenced by two factors. The first was that the department had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 25.02.2020 and without waiting for his reply passed the order of dismissal in which there was no mention of show-cause notice. Second observation of the learned Judge was, that the show-cause notice as well as the order were both passed by the same officer and the numbers of the orders (for the office file) were 523 and 524 respectively.

6. In the order the learned Single Judge has not shown any relevance of the second observation namely of the show-cause notice and the dismissal order being passed by the same officer and orders carrying consequential serial numbers. We fail to understand the