Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitiones has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 15.8.2006 taken by respondent No. 4 dispensing with the services of the petitioner by exercising and invoking power vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

2. Brief background of the case is that inquiry was got conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad in respect of taking illegal gratification of four lacs in Criminal Case No. 360 of 2006 under Section 392, IPC from Anil Bansal and others. In report dated 15.8.2006 it was found that petitioner illegally demanded Rs. Four lacs and in fact had received Rs. four lacs. Said activity of the petitioner prima facie reflected that during the course of investigation of the Criminal Case by misusing his official position, petitioner extracted sum of Rs. four lacs which clearly reflects his dishonesty and unsuitability for the post. Continuance of petitioner in police force was not found to be conducive and same has tarnished the image of the department. For this act of the petitioner, at Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, Case Crime No. 402 of 2006 under Sections 336/504/506, IPC and 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. On 15.8.2006 as petitioner has failed to attend the meeting dated 14.8.2006 meant for assessment of situation, petitioner was suspended. Thereafter Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad in exercise of power vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 dismissed the service of the petitioner. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

3. Counter-affidavit has been filed and much stress has been laid on the fact that action which has been taken is on the basis of report which was submitted and rightful decision has been taken warranting no interference by this Court.

4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that there was no occasion to exercise and invoke the power vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and that too without recording any reasons as to why it was not reasonably, practicable to hold inquiry into the alleged misconduct.

5. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal.

6. Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case without recording any finding that inquiry into the matter is practically not feasible, the authority concerned has passed totally unsustainable order of dismissal, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri P.K. Pandey countered the said submission by contending that impugned order clearly gives reasons for dispensing with the service of the petitioner as such no interference be made.

8. In order to appreciate the respective arguments which has been advanced relevant Rule 8 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is being quoted below :

Rule 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 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