Point of Law: Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 29.09.2018 by which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow has dismissed the petitioner from service and the order dated 20.05.2019 by which the representation/ appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Lucknow.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 02.11.2016 as Constable. When the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, an FIR with Case Crime No.1132 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC was lodged on 29.09.2018 at 4:57 hours by one Ms. Sana alleging therein that when she was going to her home along with her colleague Vivek Tiwari in the night, their car was parked near City Montessori School, Gomti Nagar Extension. Two policemen came in front of the car. They tried to go away from there, the police personnel tried to stop the car and thereafter, one shot was fired. However, Vivek Tiwari drove the car but after sometime, it collided with the wall at underpass and then the complainant witnessed that Vivek Tiwari was profusely bleeding from his head. Police came there and Vivek Tiwari was taken to the hospital where he died. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail and vide Office Order dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The inquiry was assigned to the Circle Officer, Alambagh, Lucknow and on the basis of his report dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the same day exercising powers conferred under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 read with Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.12911 (SS) of 2019, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 22.05.2019. Vide order dated 03.01.2019, the petitioner was released on bail.

3. On 30.09.2019 at about 18:57 hours another FIR in Case Crime No.1140 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC was lodged at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow by Smt. Kalpana Tiwari wife of late Vivek Tiwari against the petitioner and co-accused Prashant Chaudhary alleging therein that the co-accused Prashant Chaudhary has murdered her husband Vivek Tiwari who was working as Area Sales Manager in Apple Company. The said FIR of Case Crime No.1140 of 2018 was clubbed with Case Crime No.1132 of 2018.

4. After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 323 IPC in Case Crime No.1132 of 2018. Vide order dated 24.12.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 323 IPC against the petitioner and under Section 302 IPC against the co-accused Prashant Chaudhary. Vide order dated 07.03.2019 passed in ST No.49 of 2019, the petitioner was summoned for framing charges under Section 323 IPC and on 22.03.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lucknow had framed charges under Sections 323 and 302 IPC read with Section 114 IPC. The petitioner was taken into custody and sent to jail. Vide order dated 16.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.3881 (B) of 2019, the petitioner was released on bail by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Case No.2068 of 2019 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the charges framed by the court below, which is still pending.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the Circle Officer, Alambagh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to inquire the incident which was taken on 29.09.2018. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted on the same day, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 29.09.2018 which is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate R