The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and without proper justification violates the principle of natural justice and the relevant rules.

ORDER : – Since the pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 2-2-2021 (Annexure-P/2) whereby as per the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, he has been dismissed from service and also challenging the order 6-2-2021 (Annexure-P/3) where by he has been directed to vacate the Government Quarter as allotment made in his favour was cancelled in pursuance to his dismissal from service.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable and was posted at Police Station Kotwali, District Sagar. Thereafter, on a complaint made by a lady constable namely Sonali Nayak, an FIR vide Crime No. 07/2021 was registered against the petitioner in Mahila Police Station, District Sagar on 21-1-2021 (Annexure-P/4) for the offence punishable under sections 452, 354, 354-Gh, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail. In view of the said complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, respondent No. 2/Superintendent of Police exercising the powers provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 2-2-2021 (Annexure-P/2) observing therein that the conduct of the petitioner has stigmatized the image of the Police Department. It is also observed by respondent No. 2 that the manner in which the petitioner committed the crime, there was no reason for conducting any departmental enquiry and call the prosecutrix as a witness in the enquiry as that would adversely affect her dignity and image in the society. Consequently, vide order dated 6-2-2021 (Annexure-P/3), the allotment of Government Quarter No. C-05 made in the petitioner’s favour was cancelled and directing him to vacate the said premise.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the order of dismissal from service has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the law for the reason that the petitioner being a civil servant and a regular employee of the Police Department, cannot be dismissed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. More so, the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India are not applicable in the petitioner’s case and the reason assigned in the order for not conducting the regular departmental enquiry is not only unreasonable but also unacceptable which makes the order vitiate and as such, it is claimed that the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has supported the order of dismissal and stated that the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India have rightly been applied while removing the petitioner from service.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the core question which crops up for consideration is as to whether under the existing circumstances, the power exercised by respondent No. 2 and the reason assigned in the impugned order for not conducting the regular departmental enquiry is valid, acceptable and approves the decision for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry or not?

7. The hub of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that merely on the ground of registration of an offence, the petitioner who was a regular employee of the Police Department, could not be removed from service that too without conducting any departmental enquiry. Further, the reason assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry and for not following the principle of natural justice is not justified. The relevant