IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 270 of 2011 U nion of India & three others ...…………. Appellants Versus Pooran Singh Bisht ...…………. Respondent Mrs. Seema Sah, Central Government Counsel, for the appellants. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) There has been 92 days delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application has been made for condonation of delay, in preferring the appeal. On 29th November 2011, Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for the respondent, obtained two weeks time to file objection to the application of condonation of delay, in preferring the appeal. Despite obtaining such time, no objection has been filed. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, and being satisfied with the reasons therefor, allow the application. 2 The writ petitioner / respondent, a constable, in Central Industrial Security Force, allegedly fired upon a colleague of his own, and accordingly, is facing trial of a charge in relation to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On 23rd September 2009, the writ petitioner / respondent was dismissed from service. From the order of dismissal, assailed in the writ petition, it is clear that the said order was passed in exercise of power under sub Rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, in asmuchas the order of dismissal recorded, as follows: “AND WHEREAS, I am satisfied that under the circumstances any attempt to hold departmental enquiry by serving a charge sheet and following due procedures in the manner as prescribed in the rule 36, 37 and 38 of CISF Rules, 2001 is practicably impossible.” Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the said Rule, is as follows: “Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.” Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority while exercising power under sub Rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the said Rules, to record reasons, as to why he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the said Rules. From the order of dismissal it does not 3 appear that the disciplinary authority made any endeavour to record the reasons why he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the said Rules. That being the situation, purported exercise of power under sub Rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the said Rules, being contrary to the provisions contained therein, is not sustainable. By the judgment and order under appeal, the dismissal order dated 29th September 2009, passed in exercise of power under sub Rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the said Rules, having been quashed, we are of the view that there is no scope of interference in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. [ (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.12.2011 Negi