C.P. Bhayankar Singh, Con. No. 681 vs State of U.P. and another

Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.4.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, by which he has been dismissed from service.

Heard Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the relief No. (iii) which relates to validity of Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P. Police Employee (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") and requested that the petition be decided on merit in respect of the other prayers.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the dismissal order no reason whatsoever has been given, which is mandatory for dispensing with the requirement of enquiry contemplated in Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules.

In support of the contention learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others 2008 (8) ADJ 8 and in the case of Dinesh Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others 2008 (6) ADJ 485.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the impugned order detailed reasons have been given for the dismissal of the petitioner, which has not been denied in the writ petition.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 20.4.2008. The impugned order reads as follows:

Rule 8 of U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeals), 1991 read as follows:

"8. Dismissal and removal.--(1). No police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

No Police Officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules:

Provided that this rule shall not apply--

(a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or

(c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.

(3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders.

(4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor punishment.

(b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise."

In the writ petition, the aforesaid allegations mentioned in the impugned order have not been denied. In my view aforesaid reasons are sufficient to dismiss the petitioner without making any enquiry.

I have gone through the decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. They are not applicable to the present case and are distinguishable on the facts. In the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others (supra) it is held that without holding a full-fledged enquiry by using the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry is not justified.

In the case of Dinesh Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others (supra), while dispensing with the requirement of enquiry no reason was given but in the present case, detailed reasons have been given.

Police personnel is assigned work to maintain the law and order situation and is expected to be in discipline and their act should not be such which are prohibited under the provisions of law and amounts to criminal act. Petitioner being police personnel found taking the liquor during the course of duty is serious offence committed by him and cannot be condoned by any means. Apart from this he was found absent from the duty on several occasion. If such persons are allowed to continue in police service, wrong message will go to the society. Perusal of impugned order reveals that much latitude has been given to the petitioner to which he was not entitle.

Enquiry is required when facts are disputed and requires investigation and verification. In the present case allegations are not disputed.

In view of the above, no interference is required. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed