Point of Law: When reasons are not ascribed, the order is vitiated and accordingly set aside the order of dismissal which had been concurred with by the Single Judge and directed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saharsh, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service as well as the order dated 25/27.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order has been dismissed. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by the petitioner is that an incident took place on 29.03.2018 wherein the petition is alleged to have gone to the office in a drunken state, of having threatened the service personnel working there and having opened the armoury, taken out a rifle and having cocked the same and threatened the personnel. The petitioner was counselled, caught and taken for medical examination wherein he was found to be drunk. The petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter through the impugned order dated 30.03.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by invoking Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1991"). The petitioner had initially approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22292 (SS) of 2018 Inre; Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P and Ors which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated 25/27.07.2018, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition and hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the competent authority has got the power to invoke Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991 and to dismiss an employee summarily but then the reasons as to why it is not found reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry should form part of record. He contends that a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 would indicate that only two reasons have been recorded in the impugned order namely (a) the petitioner not being available and (b) the matter pertains to indiscipline. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the grounds reflect patent non application of mind inasmuch as even in case the petitioner was not available though the order was being passed the very next day of the alleged incident, the respondents could very well have issued a charge sheet and could have proceeded ex-parte in case of non availability of petitioner but the same cannot be a ground for invocation of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991. So far as it has been indicated in the impugned order that as the matter pertains to indiscipline, as such the said rule is being invoked, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even the said ground is meaningless inasmuch as disciplinary proceedings after issue of a charge sheet can always be done in case the matter pertains to indiscipline and the same cannot be a ground for invocation of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991 for dismissing the petitioner summarily. He also contends that the appellate order being also based on the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 and having not referred to the two grounds on which Rule 8 (2) (b) has been invoked also merits outright quashing as the same reflects non application of mind.

5. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 to contend that where a dismissal order had been passed by invoking Article 311 (2) proviso (b) which is pari materia to Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rule, 1991, the Apex Court has held that A