IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of an employee without a departmental inquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) requires the authority to provide valid, objective reasons for the impracticality of such an inquiry, and failure to do so renders the dismissal unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Under challenge is the dismissal order dated 24.05.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. The short argument as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the impugned dismissal order would indicate that it is alleged that the petitioner secured appointment in the department on the post of Constable by submitting a fake caste certificate consequently by following the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991) as it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, hence, without holding an inquiry, the petitioner has been dismissed.

4. The argument of learned counsel or the petitioner is that though Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules 1991 clearly empowers the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person for some reasons to be recorded by the authority in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, yet the reasons should emerge from the order impugned.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the only reason that has been recorded by the competent authority for dismissing the petitioner from service without holding of an inquiry by exercising power as conferred under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules 1991 is that as the petitioner has secured appointment on the basis of fake caste certificate consequently it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.

6. The aforesaid reasoning on the part of the competent authority is not understood in as much as no reasons emerge from the order impugned as to why simply because the petitioner has secured an appointment on the basis of a fake caste certificate as to why a regular departmental inquiry cannot be held. Once Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules 1991 casts a duty upon the competent authority to record reasons as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as such some practical reasons should emerge from the order impugned but the reasons as have been recorded by the competent authority while dismissing the petitioner from service by not holding any inquiry do not inspire any confidence and also cannot be said to be such a reason whereby the competent authority was precluded from holding an inquiry.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has also not been able to indicate as to how the aforesaid reason as has been recorded by the competent authority appeals to reason and as to what precluded the competent authority from holding a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner neither are the reasons contained in the counter affidavit.

8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the petitioner was working on the post of Constable and has been dismissed under provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules, 1991 by recording that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.

9. From perusal of the order impugned no reasons emerge as to why the competent authority has not found it reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioner. A regular employee like the petitioner has been dismissed without holding regular inquiry and even the reasons as emerge from the perusal of the order impugned do not inspire confidence of there being some reason whereby it was not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry. No reasons also emerge from a perusal of the counter affidavit as to why regular inquiry was not found practicable to be held against the petitioner.

10. This aspect of the matter has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 140 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that inquiry may be dispensed with only on the ground that it is reasonably not practicable and that subjective sati