SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 445

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Ravindra Raghav, Sri Sharan Singh
Versus
State of U.P. through Director General of Police, Dy. Inspector General of Police
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 16485 of 2001
Decided On : 11 March 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 16485 Of 2001

Advocates:
Ashok Khare, V.D.Chauhan, V.M.GAIDI,

The power under Rule 8 (2) (b) can only be invoked when it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry, and such satisfaction must be based on objective facts.

Headnote:

Rule 8 (2) (b) - Dismissal from Service - U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 8

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the order dismissing him from service without holding an enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of dismissal without holding an enquiry did not provide sufficient reasons as required by Rule 8 (2) (b) and therefore, quashed the orders of dismissal and the appellate order.

Issues: The main issue was whether the dismissal without holding an enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Rule 8 (2) (b) can only be invoked when it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry, and such satisfaction must be based on objective facts. The order of dismissal must provide reasons for dispensing with the enquiry.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of dismissal and the appellate order, allowing the respondents to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21st October, 2000 passed by Superintendent of Police dismissing the petitioner from service dispensing holding of the enquiry under the provisions of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the appellate order dated 15th february, 2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders contended that no reasons have been given for dispensing holding of the enquiry and dismissal for the petitioner invoking the power under Rules 8 (2) (b) of the Rules. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons having been recorded for dispensing holding of the enquiry invoking of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) is unjustified. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in (1991)1 s. C. C. 362; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , Judgments of this Court reported in 1996 (1) A. W. C. 245; Balveer Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1994)3 UPLBEC 1717; Deep barain v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur and Ors. and 1998 (1) UPLBEC 638; brijendra Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions raised and perused the record.

( 5 ) RULE 8 of the Rules provides for dismissal and removal, Rules 8 (1) and 8 (2) of the Rules which are relevant for the present case, are extracted 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 is contemplated by the these rules: provided that this rules 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. "

( 6 ) RULE 8 (2) (b) of the Rules provides that where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry, the police officer shall be dismissed or removed without proper enquiry as contemplated in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules. For invoking the power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, the authority empowered to dismiss has to be satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry. Thus the requirements are two fold; firstly recording of reasons; and secondly that it is not reasonable practicable to hold such enquiry. It is well settled that when power under Rule 8 (2) (b) is invoked judicial review is permissible where subjective satisfaction of the authority that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry was not based on objective facts as laid down by the apex Court in Jaswant Singhs case (supra ). The apex Court in Jaswant Singhs case (supra)had considered the provisions of Article 311 (2) second proviso (b) of the Constitution of India. Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules is para material with the second proviso (b) of Article 311 Sub-clause (2 ). The apex Court in the aforesaid judgment laid down two conditions for invoking the power under Clause (b) of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules. Following was laid down










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top