JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, who was a police constable in U.P. Police, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the dismissal order dated 3rd August, 2002, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on different charges.
2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
3. The authority in exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, read with Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, read with Section 8(2)(b), has passed the aforesaid order of dismissal. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule and the provision of Article 311(2)(b), clearly demonstrate that the punishing authority can dispense with the holding of departmental enquiry, if it comes to the conclusion that it is not possible to hold an enquiry for the reasons stated in the aforesaid clause. The provision of Article 311(2)(b) is reproduced below:-
"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.-(1)...............................
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges :
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply...........................................
(a)...................................................................................................
(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."
4. Similar the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the 1991 Rules is also reproduced here-in-below:-
"Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991-
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-
(a)......................................................................................................
(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."
5. A perusal of the dismissal order will demonstrate that it does not disclose any reason whatsoever as to why holding of the departmental enquiry against the charges levelled on the petitioner is not possible. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of dismissal deserves to be quashed.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 3rd August, 2002, Annexure-'1' to the writ petition, is quashed. However, it will be open for the Respondents to hold a regular enquiry and may take action against the petitioner in accordance with law after affording him an opportunity of hearing. There will be no order as to costs.