JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.
1. Sri R.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing orders dated 17th August, 2005, passed by respondent No. 5, 9th October, 2005 passed by respondent No. 4 and 12th December, 2005 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexures No. 5, 7 and 9 to the writ petition respectively) and further for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Constable in Civil Police and pay him salary month to month in accordance with law.
3. The facts of the case of the petitioner in brief are that he was posted as constable in Civil Police of Uttar Pradesh and during the course of service he was posted as constable 94 C.P. at police station Khekhara District Baghpat and before passing the impugned termination order he was working at Police Chauki Bazar, Khekhara, Baghpat. On 15.8.2005. the petitioner was relieved by the Station Officer to proceed to village Sunhaira vide G.D.No. 15 at 22.30 hours for the purpose of getting arm's license deposited due to the Panchayat Election of 2005. While he was away from duty, Sub-Inspector Jai Dev Malik made an inspection of the police Chauki Bazar Khekhara and made an endorsement in the G.D. No. 38 at 23.30 hours to the effect that he was not present at the Police Station and submitted his report. The petitioner after having knowledge of the aforesaid complaint reported at the Police Station Khekhara and made an entry to that effect in G.D. No. 40 at 23.45 hours on 15.8.2005. It is alleged in the writ petition that the said Sub Inspector without making necessary enquiry about rawangi of the petitioner to village Sunhaira vide G.D. No. 15 at 22.30 hour reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat on 16.8.2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) that the petitioner was habitual of drinking alcohol and misbehaved in drunken state with the public and other employees of the department in the night of 15.8.2005. A search of the petitioner was made, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police and it was found that he alone was found absent from duty whereas other remaining employees had gone on election duty and such act committed by the petitioner amounted to serious negligence and utmost dereliction of duty. In the report a request was made that the petitioner may be transferred to some other distant place. On the said report an endorsement was made by the Superintendent of Police on 16.8.2005 to the effect which reads as under:
H.C./put up to termination order under 8(2) b.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Baghpat exercising its power under Rule 8(2) b of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Sub Ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) vide order dated 17.8.2005 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect on the ground of misbehavior and uncivilized action with the public and other employees of the department due to which the image of the Police department was tarnished and such misbehavior and dereliction of duty naturally had a bad affect on the other Police Officials, therefore, he was satisfied that the petitioner was fully unfit to continue on his post in the disciplined Police Force.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.8.2005 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police- respondent No. 4 under Rule 23 of the Rules against the order dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) on the ground that neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him nor any disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law was drawn against the petitioner at all before passing the impugned termination/dismissal order dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).
6. The said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision against the said order before the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Region, Meerut-respondent No. 3 under Rule 23 of the Rules which too was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition.)
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel at length and perused the record. Rule 8(2) b of the Rules relying upon which the respondent No. 5 relied while dismissing the services of the petitioner reads as under:
8. Dismissal and removal - (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
(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) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(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) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.
9. In view of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 8 of the Rules clearly shows that the authority is empowered to dismiss or remove a person without initiating proper enquiry and disciplinary proceedings, as contemplated by the Rules provided he is satisfied that for some reason it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry but the reasons have to be recorded in writing by the authority concerned. In the present case, there is not even a whisper of any reason or ground as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry.
10. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that there was no need for the authority to endorse such reason for dispensing with an enquiry as the allegations which was made against the petitioner itself was sufficient for terminating the services of such police personal. In this respect he has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2005) (1) E.S.C. (All.) 505) which in my view is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. From perusal of the record I find that the impugned order dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat respondent No. 5 against the petitioner on the allegations which are general in nature and particularly on the basis of allegations made in the report dated 15.8.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). In the said report no specific name of a person from the public has been mentioned nor any complaint has been referred to have been received from them. More so, as per the report of the Sub Inspector of the concerned Police Station dated 16.8.2005, there was no other police employee present at the Police Station, as all of them had gone out on the election duty, whereas in the impugned order, the allegation made against the petitioner is that he misbehaved with the other police officials in drunken state. From perusal of the record, I also found that the penalty imposed against the petitioner removing him from service does not commensurate with the alleged charges and could not be reasonably imposed as in the like circumstances, in the case of Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana (1990 (20) S.L.R. 488 (P & II) Panjab & Haryana, High Court held as under:
Punishment of dismissal on a police constable on guard duty on charges of consuming liquor and chasing colleague constable on sentry duty with intention to bodily harm him and abusing the head constable, in charge guard was held disproportionate and case remanded to disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of penalty. In the case of Dharma Pal v. State of Haryana 1989 (5) SLR 569 (P&H), it has been held that the dismissal from service of the constable for having consumed liquor on duty is wholly arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
12. Further, it is not clear from the impugned orders passed in the instant case against the petitioner that the petitioner was provided any opportunity of hearing before terminating him from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner was also deprived of the basic principle of natural justice by not affording reasonable opportunity of hearing for defending himself. This Court has on two occasions earlier dealt with Rule 8(2) b of the Rules. In Brijendra Singh Yadav v. State of UP 1998 (1) UPLBEC 638 and in Deep Narain v. Deputy Inspector General of Police 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1717. In Brijendra Singh Yadav (Supra), this Court held as under:
it is well settled that the satis/action of the authority concerned for dispensing the enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonable practicable to hold the enquiry, is open to judicial review. Before an order dispensing an enquiry can be sustained, two conditions must be satisfied (1) that there existed a situation which rendered holding of any enquiry not reasonably practicable an (2) that the disciplinary authority had recorded in writing its reasons in support its conclusion. In addition to that it must also be shown that the authority concerned has not exercised the statutory power maliciously and is not motivated by personal animosity.
It was further observed:
...It was incumbent upon the respondents to disclose to the court the material which existed at the date of passing the impugned order in support of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order especially when serious allegation of mala fide were made against him as well as Sri Ranvir Singh Chauhan. It is well settled that the decision to dispense with departmental enquiry can not be rested solely on the ipse dexit to the concerned authority...Non holding a regular enquiry in the back ground of the allegations of malafide, was highly unjustified and the ground record for subjective satisfaction for non holding of enquiry that no witness was prepared to give evidence against the petitioner, was nothing but a lame excuse and appears to be a concoction.
13. In Deep Narain (Supra) it was held by this Court as under:
...the disciplinary authority has power to dispense with the enquiry but that decision can only be taken in case it is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. The reasons are to be recorded in writing in support of the satisfaction. The disciplinary authority has no right to dispense with the departmental enquiry against the government servant is week and likely to fail. The discretion which has been given to the disciplinary authority to dispense with the departmental enquiry can not rest solely on the whims of the concerned authority....
14. Thus I am of the view that disciplinary authority while exercising its special power to dispense with departmental enquiry proceeding at the time of dismissing the service of the petitioner has failed to strictly comply with the provisions as provided under Rule 8(2) b of the Rules and failed to record the reasonable ground, which is highly unjustified and the impugned order dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 5 is liable to be struck down, consequently the impugned order dated 9th October, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 12th December, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexures No. 7 and 9 to the writ petition respectively) are also liable to be quashed.
15. Under above said facts and circumstances of the case, settled law and the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), the appellate order dated 9th October, 2005 (Anncxure No. 7 to the writ petition) and the revisional order dated 12th December, 2005 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to work on the post of Constable in Civil Police and will be paid salary month to month, in accordance with law. However, the concerned authority would be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, if so it thinks proper against the petitioner in accordance with law.
16. No order is passed as to costs.