By the Court.—This petition by the State is directed against an order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 28 March 2014, granting reinstatement to the first respondent against whom an order of conviction has been passed under Section 302 read with Sections 34 of the Penal Code and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The Tribunal has adopted the view that the disciplinary authority ought to have awaited the decision of the appeal filed by the first respondent against the order of conviction and has placed reliance on the provisions contained in Regulation 492 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

2. The first respondent was employed as a Constable in the civil police. During the course of his service, case crime No. 48 of 1999 was registered against the first respondent at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur under Section 302 read with Sections 34 of the Penal Code and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Following the criminal trial, the first respondent was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 34 of the Penal Code and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge of the Fast Track Court at Fatehpur and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by a judgment and order dated 9 July 2010. The first respondent was suspended on 26 July 2010. On 9 August 2010, a notice to show-cause was issued to the first respondent under the provisions of Rule 8 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The first respondent did not submit a reply to the notice to show-cause. On 25 August 2010, the first respondent was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. Reliance was placed on the judgment of conviction rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the first respondent.

3. The first respondent has filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction. On 28 January 2011, a Division Bench of this Court directed his release on bail. By a further order dated 16 September 2011, the Division Bench observed that the Court was not suspending the conviction of the first respondent. The first respondent submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, who rejected it on 27 April 2012. The first respondent thereafter filed a claim petition before the Tribunal after a departmental appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 23 May 2012.

4. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by its judgment and order dated 28 March 2014. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal placed reliance on the provisions contained in Regulation 492 of the U.P. Police Regulations and on a judgment in Vijai Prasad Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1998 (5) SLR 324. The Tribunal held that the order of the disciplinary authority was contrary to Regulation 492. It was also of the view that the order of dismissal does not contain anything in regard to the conduct of the first respondent which led to his conviction and merely stating that the conviction had tarnished the image of the police force would not be a genuine ground for the dismissal of the first respondent.

5. The State is in appeal.

6. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 provides 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