Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
(2.) PETITIONER was a sub inspector posted at Chhoki Chunni Ganj Thana Colonel Ganj, Kanpur Nagar at the relevant time. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 20 July 2009 at 2 am he had arrested one Vikrant Gupta in connection with lifting of motor vehicles. Father of Vikrant Gupta on 24.7.2009 filed some application that petitioner had illegally arrested Vikrant Gupta on 20.07.2009. However, in para 14 of the writ petition it has been alleged that Vikrant Gupta was arrested on 24.07.2009 pursuant to F.I.R. lodged on the same date copy of which is Annexure I to the writ petition. The F.I.R. was regarding snatching of a car which according to the petitioner was recovered from Vikrant Gupta. It appears that a preliminary inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he did not cooperate and the report was submitted on 03.08.2009. Prior to that F.I.R. had also been lodged against the petitioner on 27.07.2009 copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It was alleged therein that Vikrant Gupta had been arrested illegally by the petitioner on 20.07.2009. Annexure 6 to the writ petition is order dated 05.08.2009 passed by D.I.G. Kanpur Nagar terminating the services of the petitioner under Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (punishment and appeal) Rules 1991 which is to the following effect: Where the authority empowered to dismissed 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 reasonable practicable to hold such inquiry. In the impugned order dated 5.8.2009 no objective reason has been given for dispensing with the inquiry. The only thing which has been said is that after thorough investigation of the matter and after perusal of the available records the authority concerned was fully satisfied that it was not practicable to inquire into the grave allegations against the petitioner hence he should be removed from service at once and such an order would be in accordance with law and justice and for maintaining discipline of police force. In the opinion of the Court this is absolutely no reason. This is such type of reason which may be affixed in any case. Moreover, along with rejoinder affidavit copy of an order dated 21.02.2010 has been annexed which has been passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar in case Ram Kumar Gupta. Through the said order final report filed in respect of case which had been initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the F.I.R. filed by the father of Vikrant Gupta i.e. by Ram Kumar Gupta (Annexure 3 to the writ petition dated 27.07.2009) has been accepted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority of this Court reported in Rajesh Verma v. State of U.P., 2007(2) ESC 1200 (All) interpreting the above rule and holding that without indicating specific reasons inquiry can not be dispensed with. I fully agree with the view taken in the authority wherein several authorities of the Supreme Court have also been considered.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 05.08.2009 is set aside. Respondents are directed to at once initiate regular inquiry against the petitioner by serving a charge sheet and conclude the same positively within six months provided that petitioner fully cooperates therein and does not seek single adjournment either for filing reply or in the inquiry. For this period he shall be treated to be under suspension and shall be paid suspension allowance. In the order to be passed after regular inquiry question of payment of suspension allowance from 05.08.2009 till date shall also be considered.;