- (1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.12.2005, passed by respondent no. 4 as well as appellate order dated 25.4.2006, passed by respondent no. 3, as contained in Annexures No. 1 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the petitioner to continue in service and to pay him salary and other consequential benefits admissible to him. Facts of the case, as per pleadings of the writ petition, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, a Sub Inspector, was posted at the police station Kasna, district Gautambudh Nagar during the period from August 2004 to March, 2005. On 1.10.2004, a report was lodged at Police Station Kasna regarding missing of three boys, namely Arshad, Asif and Meharban. An inquiry was conducted, statements of witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was found involved in the crime. The petitioner remained absconded and, therefore, process of 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. was initiated against him. Property of the petitioner was attached. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and others approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. Application and arrest of the petitioner was stayed by this Court on 23.6.2005. Later on, the investigation was referred to the CBCID and chargesheet was submitted. The petitioner alongwith other police personnels was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.3.2005 due to his involvement in case crime no. 65 of 2005 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. During enquiry, petitioner was transferred from police line, Gautambudh Nagar to Kanpur Zone vide order dated 02.7.2005. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 the petitioner was dismissed from service as per provisions contained in sub rule (2) (b) of Rule 8 of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal to the Authority concerned which was dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2006. This Court vide order dated 16.6.2006 stayed the dismissal order passed in respect of the petitioner.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the opposite party no. 4 in most unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary manner in purported exercise of power under proviso to Rule 8 (2) (b) of U. P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules") observing therein that in view of the fact that in criminal investigation the charges have been found proved against the petitioner pursuant whereof a chargesheet has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, there is no justification for holding departmental inquiry and, therefore, the petitioner has been dismissed from service without any inquiry. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the above order of dismissal by means of order dated 25.4.2006, observing that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of dismissal passed by the Opposite Party No. 4.;