Court has held that the Court will examine the charge of malafides, if any, made in the writ petition. In examining the relevancy of the reasons, the Court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. If the Court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, then the recording of its satisfaction by the disciplinary authority would be an abuse of power conferred upon it by clause (b) of Article 311(2) and would take the case out of the purview of that clause. In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority, the Court will not, however, sit in judgment over them like a Court of first appeal. In order to decide whether the reasons are germane to clause (b), the Court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a reasonable man acting in a reasonable way would have done. The matter will have to be judged in the light of the then prevailing situation and not as if the disciplinary authority was deciding the question whether the enquiry should be dispensed with or not in the cool and detached atmosphere of a Court room, removed in time from the situation in question. Further, where two views are possible, the Court will decline to interfere.
