JUDGMENT

Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Uttarakhand Police in the year 2012. He was dismissed from service, vide order dated 24.05.2020, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. The dismissal order is on record as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition. Charge against the petitioner was that he misbehaved with a lady, whose husband was quarantined in Surajmal Engineering College, Pulbhatta, Kichha, during lockdown imposed in view of Covid-19 Pandemic. It is mentioned in the dismissal order that petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was found under influence of liquor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of the alleged incident is 24.05.2020 and the dismissal order was also passed with undue haste, the same day without holding any inquiry whatsoever. He further submitted that petitioner was neither given notice nor opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order and the punishment of dismissal is therefore violative of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions contained in the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as applicable in State of Uttarakhand.

4. Learned State Counsel submitted that the dismissal order was passed against the petitioner based on a report submitted by Circle Officer, Sitarganj, which is enclosed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2.

5. Perusal of Annexure CA-2, however, reveals that Circle Officer was not appointed Inquiry officer and he simply reported a incident to the Senior Superintendent of Police. It further reveals that alleged incident occurred on 24.05.2020 and the report was submitted by Circle Officer, Sitarganj on the same day. The dismissal order was incidentally passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police Udham Singh Nagar the same day, i.e. on 24.05.2020.

6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry.

7. Learned State Counsel then contended that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in invoking the power available to him under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as under:-

“8. Dismissal and removal-(1)…

(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-

(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 enquiry.”

8. This Court is not impressed by the contention raised by learned State Counsel. Although, Rule 8(2)(b) of the applicable Rules enables the Disciplinary Authority to dispense with the disciplinary inquiry in appropriate cases, however, it cannot be dispensed with in a routine or casual manner. The power to dispense with disciplinary inquiry is meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, when conducting disciplinary inquiry is not reasonably practicable, such as due to witness intimidation, threats to the disciplinary authority, an atmosphere of violence or general indiscipline or when the disciplinary authority is satisfied that holding an inquiry would be prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State.

9. To ensure that power to dispense with disciplinary inquiry is invoked for legally defensible reason and not arbitrarily, the following conditions have to be satisfied:-

(i) disciplinary authority has to explicitly record the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry in the final order;

(ii) the decision to dispense with the disciplinary inquiry must be based on objective facts e.g. intelligence reports, witness statements etc. rather than mere