ORDER M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of termination of service dated 14.11.1992 Annexure-1 to the writ petition which has been upheld in appeal by order dated 11.6.1993- vide Annexure-2 and in further appeal by order dated 23.11.1993 vide Annexure-3. Against this order the petitioner had approached the U. P. Public Service Tribunal but the Tribunal has rejected his claim petition vide order dated 21.6.2001 Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
3. We have carefully perused the impugned order and find no illegality in the same.
4. The petitioner was a Head Constable who was posted in the G.R.P. in Jhansi Division on 25.2.1991. When the petitioner was on duty in the Bombay Janta Express Train, a dacoity was committed on the train the same night and it is this incident which resulted in the action against the petitioner.
5. The allegations against the petitioner are that when the train left Manda Road Station, the petitioner at the suggestion of certain dacoits opened the door of Bogie No. 17 due to which the dacoits entered inside the Bogie and looted the passengers.
The petitioner never took any action to stop this and in fact, he cooperated with the dacoits. A First Information Report under Section 397 was registered against the petitioner and others in which the petitioner and the two Home Guards were called for identification but the petitioner threatened the eye-witnesses and hence, no one came to give evidence. The petitioner also did not do the identification. Since it was not possible to take action under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act due to the petitioner's terror, the S.P. Railway utilising his power under Section 8(2)(b) terminated the services of the petitioner.
Section 8(2)(b) of the Act states as follows :
"(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."
6. The autnorities concerned were of the view that the petitioner was involved in the dacolty and was hand in gloves with the dacoits and due to the terror of the petitioner, nobody is prepared to give evidence against him.
7. We have also perused the counter-affidavit. In para 5 it is stated that due to terror of the petitioner, nobody was prepared to come for the identification, and after the identification, the petitioner had shaken hand with the dacoits. In para 9 it is stated that the petitioner had himself opened the door of the Bogle to enable the dacoits to enter and he was in collusion with them.
8. On the facts and circumstances, we find no error of law in the impugned order. The authorities have power to terminate the service under Section 8(2)(b) of the Act without holding enquiry if it is not practicable to do so. In the present case, the petitioner appears to be a notorious person and thus no one is willing to give evidence against him. His duty was to give security to the people in the train but he was himself involved in the dacoity. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed.