Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ABDUL MOIN
Jitendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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 ....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of concrete and appropriate reasons for dispensing with an inquiry before dismissing a government servant, as mandated by Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Se....
The dismissal of employees without a regular departmental enquiry and based solely on a preliminary enquiry was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article