HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59294 of 2007 Petitioner :- Som Nath Rai Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.M. Shukla,Alok Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.C.Upadhaya Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.8.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Pilibhit. Through the impugned order, the petitioner, who was posted as Constable in U.P. Civil Police at Pilibhit, has been dismissed from service after dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry in exercise of power under proviso of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1991').
A reading of the order dated 19.8.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police shows that no reasons have been given in the same for dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry as contemplated in Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1991.
Rule 8 of the Rules, 1991 is reproduced below:-
"8. Dismissal and removal - (1) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
(2) 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 reasons 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."
A reading of the proviso (b) of Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1991 clearly shows that the disciplinary inquiry can be dispensed with by the competent authority before dismissing or removing or reducing in rank the charged police officer only if the said authority is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry and reasons for the said satisfaction have to be recorded by the concerned authority in writing. The aforesaid Rule 8 of the Rules, 1991 which is pari materia with Article - 311 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad 2006 (1) ESC 374. The observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 13 of the said judgment which are relevant for the present writ petition are reproduced below:-
"10. A perusal of the dismissal order dated 1.1.98 shows that the disciplinary authority has nowhere mentioned that holding of disciplinary enquiry is not reasonably practicable, although it has exercised the power under Rule-8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 which is pari materia with Article-311(2) of the Constitution of India. Even he has not recorded his satisfaction in respect of the aforesaid requirements. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition also nowhere mention the aforesaid requirements of Rules and the only thing mentioned therein that it has passed the order on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Circle Officer, Saifai, Etawah. The moot question would be, does it constitutes sufficient material. We are of the view that this contention of the appellant is apparently incorrect and cannot be sustained. It does not constitute the sufficient material and does not satisfy the requirement of statute.
13. Considering the case in hand in the light of the legal principle laid down in the above cases we find that the order of dismissal nowhere shows that the authority has recorded its satisfaction that holding of a disciplinary enquiry is not reasonably practicable. No record has been produced by the appellant to show that such findings were recorded by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules."
As recorded earlier, the impugned order dated 19.8.2007 nowhere indicates that the authority has recorded its satisfaction that holding of the disciplinary inquiry was not reasonably practicable.
The counter affidavit filed by the respondents also does not disclose any material which could have persuaded the disciplinary inquiry to exercise its power under Rule 8(2)(b). The impugned order is clearly in violation of Rule 8 and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
At this stage, it is also relevant to record that by the impugned order dated 19.8.2007, one Rakesh Kumar Misra, who was posted with the petitioner, was also dismissed from service after dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry as contemplated in Rule 8 and the said order so far as Rakesh Kumar Misra is concerned has been set-aside by this Court vide its order dated 3.12.2010 passed in C.M. Writ Petition No. 56621 of 2007. The said judgment of the Court has been annexed with the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 19.8.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Pilibhit is, hereby, quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 Satyam