The authority must provide objective justifications for the impracticability of holding an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and the dismissal of a regular member of the force is a drastic measure that requires compelling and valid reasons.

JUDGMENT :

A. J. DESAI, J.

1. The Appellate Bench exercising powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is requested to deal with the orders passed by the respondent authorities dismissing the services of the appellant exercising powers under the proviso of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 14 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'GCSR') which orders have been confirmed by learned Single Judge.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is against oral judgment dated 12.1.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which learned Single Judge has refused to issue a writ of mandamus for quashment of the order dated 15.2.2003 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city who exercised his powers under the aforesaid Rules and dismissed the services of the appellant without holding any departmental inquiry and the said order has been confirmed by orders dated 30.10.2003 passed by Appellate Authority and the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Revisional Authority.

3. The short facts arise from the record are as under :-

3.1 That the appellant was appointed as an Unarmed Police Constable by an order dated 9.7.1980. An FIR being I C.R. No.157 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Bapunagar Police Station. The appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 24.6.1994. The departmental inquiry was initiated and ultimately, he was issued charge-sheet on 26.5.1995. The said FIR was registered as Criminal Case No.235 of 1998. In the said Criminal Case, the appellant was discharged by order dated 23.2.1999. During the pendency of the inquiry, seven FIRs were registered against the appellant with Bapunagar and Rakhial Police Stations.

3.2 The appellant had filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6092 of 1995 before this Court with regard to the departmental inquiry initiated against him and initially, stay was granted against the departmental inquiry. However, the said petition was disposed of by an order dated 6.2.1996 by which the respondent authorities were permitted to proceed with the departmental inquiry subsequent to completion of criminal case which was registered on the basis of FIR registered with Bapunagar Police Station.

3.3 It is the case of the appellant that though the appellant was discharged in the Criminal Case in the year 1999, the departmental inquiry did not proceed further. However, by order dated 15.2.2003, the Police Commissioner relying upon the aforesaid FIR in which he was discharged as well as other seven offences registered against him with two different Police Stations of City of Ahmedabad registered on 28.2.2002, 1.3.2002, 2.3.2002, 3.3.2002 and 21.4.2002 (in all seven offences) which were registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 185, 435, 436, 395, 397 and 398 etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Arms Act, found that it was not possible and reasonably practical to hold such an inquiry and, therefore, his services were dismissed. The said decision was challenged by the appellant by way of filing appeal which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.10.2003. Both the said orders were challenged by the appellant by filing Revision Application which was also dismissed on 24.3.2006. All these orders came to be challenged by the appellant before learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondents supporting the orders passed by the authorities to which rejoinder was filed by the appellant.

3.4 Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the captioned writ petition.

3.5 Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.

4. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel ass