JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Petitioner who is employed as Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was placed under suspension by an order dated 18.2.2006 on the basis of an episode telecast by Star News Channel on 17.2.2006. A preliminary enquiry was directed into the facts as noticed in the episode. The officer conducting the preliminary enquiry submitting a report to the effect that the petitioner was guilty of demanding illegal gratification for ensuring that persons mentioned in the report are not harassed by the police. On the basis of the report so submitted which according to the petitioner is wholly ex parte, the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut by means of the order dated 21.2.2006 has decided to dismiss the petitioner from service without holding, departmental proceedings in exercise of powers under Rule 8(2) Proviso (B) of the 1991 Rules. This order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut is under challenged in the present writ petition.
2. Counsel for the petitioner Shri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shishir Tandon submits that the impugned order does not record any reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. In absence of reasons having been recorded in writing as required under Rule 8(2) Proviso (B), the order impugned cannot be legally sustained.
3. Standing Counsel on the other hand submiti that since the news channel had telecast the episode depicting the involvement of the petitioner in a misconduct live, it was appropriate that such police offices who damage the image of the police department at large should not be permitted to continue in service and, therefore, he suggests that no interference be made in the impugned order. Standing Counsel further submits that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by way of Appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The writ petition be, therefore, dismissed.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Since the facts involved in the present writ petition are not in dispute, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 8(2) Proviso (B) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 as is applicable :
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 enquiry; or
(c) ...
5. From the aforesaid Rule it is established that normal rule to be adopted against a police officer to be subjected to major penalty Is after holding a departmental enquiry as contemplated under the Rules i.e. U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Dispensation of the departmental enquiry is an exception and, therefore, the Section 8(2) Proviso B itself mandates that reasons for such dispense must be recorded in writing.
6. From the impugned order it is apparent that the mandate of Rule 8(2) Proviso (B) has not been carried out and absolutely no reasons for dispensation with the departmental enquiry before dismissing the petitioner from service have been recorded in writing as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry In such circumstances the order not being supported by sufficient reasons recorded for dispensing with the enquiry is hit by Rule 8(2) Proviso (B), and, therefore, cannot be legally sustained.
7. It is settled law that availability of statutory remedy is not an absolute bar for entertainment of writ petitions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied that it would be more appropriate to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of refusing to do so on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Accordingly the objection raised by the Standing Counsel is hereby turned out.
9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove the impugned order dated 21.2.2006 is hereby quashed. However since the petitioner was under suspension prior to passing of the impugned order it is provided that such suspension shall continue till the respondents take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. If a decision is taken to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of charges, such departmental proceedings must be completed within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before respondent No. 2. In case respondent No. 2 feels that departmental proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case is not practicable, he shall record reasons for the same in writing.