Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner a constable in Civil Police was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on July 3, 2008 under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short the Rules of 1991) without conducting departmental enquiry on the ground that on the charges levelled against him, it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the order and has directly approached this Court for setting aside the order on the ground that the facts and circumstances, in which the petitioner is facing a criminal trial under Section 7 (13) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being caught for accepting bribe red handed, would not be a ground on which it can be said that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry.

3. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal from service is entirely arbitrary, discriminatory and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted before passing the order and that the recital in the order about the failure of the petitioner to discharge his duties and the holding of enquiry in a serious matter of corruption is neither appropriate nor proper. The alleged involvement of any government servant in corruption, is not a ground on which the departmental enquiry can be dispensed with.

4. In the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner filed on 14.11.2008 it is stated that the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority are not logical and rational. In a matter of corruption, even if the petitioner was alleged to be caught red handed, a departmental enquiry was necessary to establish the charges. The counsel for the petitioiner states that it is mandatory requirement of law under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 and the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Cosntitution of India to record reasons as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. The recital of the words in the rule is not sufficient to discharge the burden for recording and establishing the grounds that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry.

5. It is contended that in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 136-A and 137 as follows :

"130. The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that “it is not reasonably practicable to hold” the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words used are “not reasonably practicable” and not “impracticable”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary “practicable” means “Capable of being put into practice, carried out in action, effected, accomplished, or done; feasible”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word “practicable” inter alia as meaning “possible to practice or perform. : capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished : feasible”. Further, the words used are not, “not practicable” but “not reasonably practicable”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word “reasonably” as “in a reasonable manner : to a fairly sufficient extent”. Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. ‘It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would