The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of recording satisfaction and conducting a fair enquiry before dispensing with the enquiry, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for objective facts to justify the decision.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6. 1. 1996 passed by the respondent No. 1 contained in annexure 1 to the writ petition and further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the services of the petitioner as constable in 45th Battalion, P. A. C. , Aligarh and pay him salary treating his services in continuation.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in 35th battalion, P. A. C. , Lucknow sometimes in the year 1984. In the year 1987 he was transferred to 45th Battalion, P. A. C. , Aligarh. Further he was sent alongwith his Battalion to Konkrajhar, assam. His services was terminated vide order dated 6. 1. 1996, which was communicated to him on 8. 1. 1996 at Aligarh when his Battalion came to Aligarh.

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner was found absent from the Battalion at 1900 hours on 3. 1. 1996 and had gone to a nearby hotel. He had consumed liquor and had quarreled with the public. A preliminary enquiry was held by one Shri Mahipal Singh, Asstt. Commandant of Operational head Quarter, who after considering the statement of the petitioner and other witness submitted his report to the Commandant on 4. 1. 1996 recommending for termination of his services by invoking the provisions of Rules 8 (2) (b) and (c) of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The Commandant, vide order dated 6. 1. 1996 dispensed with the regular enquiry and passed order terminating the services of the petitioner. He found that if regular enquiry is held, the lives of the officers and staff would be in danger and it would not be in the national interest. The said order is under challenge.

( 4 ) I have heard Shri C. B. Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 cannot dispense with the disciplinary enquiry without recording its satisfaction and such satisfaction should be reasonable and not arbitrary. He submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order, the satisfaction recorded by the respondent No. 1 does not meet the requirement of the provisions of Rules 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of this plea, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions rendered in the cases mentioned below:

(i) Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 385. (ii) Chief Security Officer and Ors. v. Singasan Rabi Das, AIR 1991 SC 1043. (iii) Brijendra Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1998) 1 UPLBEC 638.

( 5 ) HE further submitted that even on the material on record, the preliminary enquiry was not conducted fairly and in any event the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. According to him the extreme penalty of termination of service should be set aside and if at all any punishment is to be given then a lesser punishment should be given. In support of his aforesaid plea the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Bachan Yadav v. Commandant, p. A. C. , 20th Battalion, Azamgarh and Ors. , reported in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 730.

( 6 ) THE learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was posted in assam and was expected to maintain discipline whose battalion was sent to check the terrorist. The sending of the Battalion to Assam was highly confidential and if the petitioner indulged in consuming liquor and involved himself in quarrelling with public the secret mission had been exposed which had put the life of other officers and constables in danger. Thus, there was sufficient material before the authority to dispense with