VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

548 DECISION -256
case. The Supreme Court referred to Tulsiram Patel’s case (1985(2)
SLR SC 576), where the Supreme Court rejected a similar
contention.
The third contention was that the reasons for dispensing with
the inquiry did not accompany the order. The Supreme Court
observed that a perusal of the reasons shows that they were recorded
later and that they would have struck down the order of dismissal in
view of the decisions in Tulsiram Patel’s case, but the impugned
order of dismissal itself sets out the reasons why is was not reasonably
practicable to hold the inquiry and the “reasons” served separately
merely amplified and elaborated what had been stated in the
impugned order. There is thus no substance in any of the contentions
advanced in the case of Sawant.
(256)
(A) Constitution of India — Art. 311(2) second proviso
cl.(b)
(B) Inquiry — not practicable
Dispensing with inquiry proper and passing order
of dismissal, where witnesses threatened and
intimidated, proper.
A.K. Sen vs. Union of India,
1986(2) SLR SC 215
The petitioners were six security guards belonging to the
Central Industrial Security Force. They were dismissed from service
by dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry under clause (b) of rule 37
of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 read with clause
(b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of Constitution. The dismissed
security guards filed writ petitions in the Kerala High Court and they
are transferred to the Supreme Court, as a number of other matters
involving the interpretation of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) were
pending in the Supreme Court. These other matters were disposed
of by a Constitution Bench by a common judgment, viz. Union of
India & anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel: 1985(2) SLR SC 576. In these