F. I. Rebello, C.J. and A. P. Sahi, J. - (1.) IN the present appeal the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2010. The appellant filed a petition challenging the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
(2.) THE submission on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the enquiry was dispensed with without giving any reason as to why no departmental enquiry could be held and why it was not reasonably practicable to hold the same. After considering the contentions, the learned single Judge relied upon the judgment in the case of Yadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2009 (9) ADJ 86, wherein one of us (A.P. Sahi,J.) was a member. Learned single Judge summed up the reasons given by the Officer for not holding the enquiry as under: 1. The petitioner has tried to influence the witness of the concerned criminal case by misusing his official position; 2. He has also caused unjustified interference with the criminal investigation and; 3. He has terrorized and threatened the concerned party as well as witnesses of the criminal case whereby the investigation is going on. All this would show that the charge against the appellant herein is that in a particular criminal case he is terrorizing or intimidating witnesses. This by itself could be the subject matter of charge sheet against the appellant herein. The question that we are called upon to answer is upon a true construction of Rules 8 (1) and 8 (2).
(3.) WE may now refer to Rule 8 of the rules as under : "Rules 8. Dismissal and removal. 3/4(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." In the normal course in respect of a Police Officer an enquiry has to be commenced before such Officer can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. There are exceptions provided in the proviso (b) that an authority is empowered to dismiss or remove a person or reduce after recording a satisfaction that it is neither practicable nor reasonable to hold an enquiry. In other words in respect of the charges against the delinquent employee, Police Officer (authority) must arrive at a conclusion that enquiry cannot be proceeded with or has to be dispensed with. In other words it is not the gravity of the charge but whether the enquiry can be proceeded with.;