By the Court.—The respondent was a constable in the police department having been originally appointed on 1 November 1978. He was tried for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 320/120B of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001. By a judgment and order dated 18 June 2010, the respondent was convicted of those offences by the Court of the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. On 8 September 2010, the services of the respondent were terminated under Rule 8(2)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules of 1991).

Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 reads as follows:

“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) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders.

(4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor punishment.

(b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise.

2. The order of termination was challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in which reinstatement together with consequential benefits and continuity of service was sought. The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 3 October 2013 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 8 September 2010 while directing all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 and Shankar Dass v. Union of India, 1985(2) SCR 358, in holding that the Superintendent of Police failed to consider the conduct of the respondent which had led to his conviction, before imposing the punishment of dismissal by means of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge was of the view that unless the authority had applied its mind to the conduct which led to the conviction and quantum of punishment, the exercise of powers under Rule 8 (2)(a) could not be regarded as valid.

3. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that in the present case, the respondent was convicted of a serious offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code read with Section 120B. Ex facie, the conduct of the respondent which had led to his conviction of a criminal charge under Section 302 must necessarily be of a serious nature. Moreover, sub-rule (b) of Rule 8 (4) postulates that every officer convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority considers it otherwise for reasons recorded in writing.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent support