The petitioner who was a constable (bearing constable no. 268) in Uttarakhand Civil Police and was appointed in the police service on 24.2.2002 has presently challenged the order dated 7.2.2005 passed by his appointing authority the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar who while exercising his powers under Rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), has dispensed with an inquiry and a disciplinary proceeding and straightway dismissed the petitioner from service. The validity of this order as well as the consequent order dated15.9.2005 passed by the appellate authority are in challenge before this Court in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 24.2.2009 (sic, 2002) and after undergoing nine months’ training, was finally inducted as a constable in Uttarakhand civil police. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was at Haridwar he was assigned to go for training to 40 Bn. P.A.C., Haridwar, which was to be commenced from 3.2.2005 to 15.3.2005 and for which he had already taken leave on 2.2.2005. However, instead of joining the training he indulged in a drunken brawl with his fellow constable, namely, Nishant Malik and consequently ran away to Delhi. Subsequently thereafter his brother and sister lodged a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police that they have received phone calls from the petitioner that he has been kidnapped, etc. etc.

3. On preliminary inquiry conducted by the Reserved Inspector, it was found that the petitioner indulged in a drunken brawl with his fellow Constable Nishant Malik and thereafter he fled. The entire story of the petitioner that he has been beaten by Nishant Malik was fabricated by the petitioner. Moreover, according to the Senior Superintendent of Police in its impugned order, this incident has been published widely in media which has in turn given a bad image to the police force in Uttarakhand in general and in Haridwar in particular. For these reasons, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar exercising his powers under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (from hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1991’) dismissed the petitioner from service. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1991, reads as under :

“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 dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders.

(4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escane shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lesser punishment.

(b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise.”

4. Accord