B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.12.199 by which he has been removed from service.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a permanent Constable in the U.P. Civil Police. He was appointed in the year 1981 and at the relevant time was posted at Gorakhpur on 22.12.1999. It is stated that the petitioner fell ill and he had to go home as he was suffering from dysentery and was on bed rest. On 25.12.1999 when he reported back for duty he was allowed to join his duties and he also marked his attendance upto 27.12.1999. Thereafter all of sudden the impugned order dated 28.12.1999 has been served upon the petitioner removing him from service by the competent authority exercising power under Rule 8( b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks ( Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

I have heard Shri Arvind Kumar Singh-II, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the documents on record.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed holding that it is reasonably not practicable to hold any enquiry and therefore neither was any enquiry held nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

From a perusal of the impugned order, it will be seen that the petitioner's services have been dispensed with in exercise of powers under Rule 8( b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks ( Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The rule 8 reads as under:

"8( 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, 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."

Rule 8 empowers the competent authority to impose a penalty of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank and dispense with the services of a police officer to whom the Rules apply, if the authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing by the competent authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. The petitioner, as per his own admission, remained absent from duty from 22.12.1999 to 24.12.1999 and he reported back for duty on 25.12.1999 and worked upto 27.12.1999 and also signed the attendance register and on 28.12.1999 the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order does not record any reasons as to why the power under Rule 8( b) of the Rules, 1991 was resorted to and if the petitioner was absent from duty without a proper leave application being sanctioned why it was impracticable to hold an enquiry by issuing a charge sheet to the petitioner. All that has been stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner has been habitually absenting himself from duty and has been negligent in the performance of his duties and also disobeyed the order. These allegations are of general nature and in the absence of any particulars are absolutely vague. If absence from duty was the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner, it was the duty of the competent authority to have issued a charge sheet to him and sought his explanation and held an enquiry and only if the guilt of the petitioner was established then the order of penalty could have been passed. Absence from duty cannot be such a ground wherein it may be said that it is impracticable to hold an enquiry, when as in the present case the employee is throughout present thereafter and attending his duties.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 1416 has held in paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 as under:

"132.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document