Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being finally disposed of under the Rules of Court.

3. The petitioner was recruited and appointed as a constable in the Armed Police on 14.4.1978. In the year 2004 while the petitioner was posted at Police Lines, Agra an order was passed by the Inspector, Reserve Police Lines, Agra constituting a police party headed by a Head-Constable alongwith three constables including the petitioner to take the accused Chandra Sen lodged in the Central Jail, Agra to be produced in the Court at Bareilly, Nainital and Shahjahanpur. After producing the said accused in the concerned Court, he was lodged back in the central jail, Agra. However, on 1.9.2004 a First Information Report was lodged by one Fahim Khan at P.S. Faridpur, district Bareilly which was registered as case crime No. 457 of 2004 under Section 364 and 120-B I.P.C. on the allegation that his two nephews have been kidnapped by 20 to 30 persons. Nobody was named in the F.I.R. After investigation of the said case, the police submitted charge-sheet against certain persons. However, the petitioner was not named in the said charge-sheet.

4. Vide order dated 16.6.2005 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, the petitioner was placed under suspension on charges of having found guilty during the course of investigation of case crime No. 457 of 2004 under Section 364 and 120-B I.P.C. Subsequently, an order dated 25.4.2006 was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah dismissing the petitioner from the service in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Police Officers’ of the Sub-ordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. The reason given in the order is that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties and took the accused Chandra Sen in a hotel and allowed him to meet his gang and extended help to the said accused in committing crime of abduction which has resulted in lowering the image of the police force and in the event, he is allowed to continue in the force the same may result in breeding further indiscipline amongst the force.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 8, the services could be dispensed with where the disciplinary authority was satisfied for the reasons, which are to be recorded in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It has further been submitted that the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with without holding an inquiry on entirely irrelevant grounds and no reason has been recorded for the same.

6. In reply, it has been submitted by learned counsel by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was found involved in committing a heinous crime as such, he was not found to be fit to be retained in police force and has rightly been dismissed from the service and the impugned order does not call for any interference.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The order of termination indicates that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the allegation of his involvement in hatching a conspiracy with the criminal in committing offence under Section 364 I.P.C. while he was taking the said accused to be produced before the Court as such, his continuance was detrimental to the police force.

9. Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules reads as under.

“8. (2)(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 inquiry.”

10. The language of the aforesaid Rules, is almost similar to 2nd proviso to Ar