Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.5.2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents from interfering with the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Constable.

2. The petitioner was selected in the year 1998 on the post of Constable. After completion of training he was posted at different places. When the petitioner was posted at Kotwali, Farrukhabad, an incident took place on 30.4.1996 in which cross F.I.R.s were lodged by the Superintendent of Police and Inspector Kotwali. It was stated in the F.I.R. that an incident has taken place on 2nd May, 2006, when the Superintendent of Police was sitting in his office and one Sri Nar Singh Pal Singh, Inspector, Kotwali alongwith Anand Kumar Singh and Rajesh Singh, Sub-Inspector Kotwali, Farrukhabad alongwith two constables, entered into the office and attacked the Superintendent of Police. It was also stated in the F.I.R. lodged by the Superintendent of Police that he was threatened by the police officials. Another F.I.R. was also lodged by Nar Singh Pal Singh, Inspector Kotwali which states that no such incident has taken place. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. it appears that the Superintendent of Police had passed an order dispensing the services of the petitioner by invoking Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules of 1991). Rule 8 is being reproduced below :

"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 it is not expedient to hold such enquiry."

3. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal has approached this Court. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Rule 8(2)(b) clearly indicates that no police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper enquiry and disciplinary proceedings, as contemplated by the Rules, provided that this rule will not apply where an order of dismissal or removal was passed on the ground of conduct, which has led to conviction on a criminal charge or where the authority empowered to pass an order is satisfied that for some reasons, to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry or where the State Government is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such an enquiry. The bare perusal of the order dated 8.5.2006 would clearly indicate that the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid rule has not at all been complied with. The impugned order further indicate that some preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj and on the basis of some information received from eye-witnesses, he has submitted a report that Superintendent of Police Sri Rahul Asthana was assaulted by some police officials.

4. While passing the order impugned, the competent authority has not recorded a finding to this effect that it is not practicable to hold the regular enquiry. The condition precedent of Rule 8(2)(b) is over stayed rule can be invoked