Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 5.8.2006 taken by Deputy Inspector General of Police Meerut Zone Meerut, District Meerut, respondent No. 3 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 on 3.8.2006 petitioner alongwith constable Sanjeev Kumar was on petrolling duty. During petrolling duty at about 9.30 p.m., four unknown miscreants attacked Sanjeev Kumar and on account of which rifle which was being carried by Sanjeev Kumar sealing of the same was broken and all four miscreants carried the rifle of Sanjeev Kumar with five live cartridges in jungle. First Information Report being Case Crime No. 148 of 2006 under Section 392, IPC was lodged. On 5.8.2006 Circle Officer, Garhmukteshwar and Superintendent of Police (Rural Area) submitted their comments and found that petitioner did not make any resistance which reflects unsuitability on the post and in case any resistance would have been put qua the said incident then same could have been avoided. In this background prima facie petitioner was found unfit for retaining the post and it was also mentioned that image of police has been tarnished and retention of the petitioner in disciplined force is inappropriate. It has further been mentioned that from the facts and comments supplied that there is no requirement for detailed inquiry as such Deputy Inspector General of Police Meerut Zone Meerut, District Meerut, respondent No. 3 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 services 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 Vijay Gautam 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