Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167275
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13106 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Mahesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.06.2023, whereby, the petitioner who has been working as confirmed Sub Inspector in U.P. Police, has come to be dismissed from service on the ground of serious misconduct but that too without holding any disciplinary inquiry as contemplated under relevant service rules namely U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 taking recourse to clause - B of sub Rule (2) of Rule 8 which empowers the authority not to hold inquiry in certain cases of dismissal from service where it has come to conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been prima facie held to be guilty of serious misconduct and no such circumstance having been explained as to why the proper disciplinary inquiry cannot be held in the matter, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Reena Rani v. State of Haryana & Others, (2012) 10 SCC 215, wherein, the Court appreciated the arguments of Additional Advocate General in the said case that no specific reasons have been assigned as to why it was not reasonably practicable for respondents to hold an inquiry. Paragraph no. 7 of the judgment runs as under:
"7. In the order of dismissal, the Superintendent of Police has not disclosed any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that the order of dismissal does not contain the reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry against the appellant. He also admitted that no other record has been made available to him which would have revealed that the Superintendent of Police had recorded reasons for forming an opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry for proving the particular charge(s) against the appellant."
4. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that this order may be set aside and the matter may be left open for the respondent disciplinary authorities to proceed in accordance with relevant rule 14 of 1991 Rules, which provides for dismissal and removal of an employee from service by following the prescribed procedure.
5. In view of the above, the order impugned herein dated 09.06.2023 is hereby quashed.
6. Writ petition thus stands allowed.
7. Authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with Rule 14 of Rules, 1991, if so advised and if so desire.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
IrfanUddin
