Hon'ble A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Siddarth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1998. However, he has been dismissed from service after nine years of service under the provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). The reasons given for dismissal of the petitioner is that on verification it has been found that the caste certificate on the basis whereof he had obtained employment was a forged caste certificate.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Yadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (9) ADJ 86 (DB), contended that there is no satisfaction recorded by the authorities as to why it was not reasonable or practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid allegation of caste certificate being forged and, therefore, in the absence of any satisfaction having been recorded the order impugned is unsustainable. It is further submitted that even otherwise the reason given for not holding the inquiry is preposterous and the order deserves to be set aside. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that an inquiry report was received from the Tehsildar, Handia, Allahabad, which indicates that no such certificate was issued to the petitioner and on the basis of the said report obtained from the Tehsildar the services of the petitioner were terminated, hence no interference is called for. Without going into the merit of the claim of either of the parties in relation to the genuineness of the caste certificate, the power exercised by the authority under Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules has to be inconsonance with the ingredients mentioned therein. The said 1991 Rules clearly require that the authority will have to record a satisfaction as to why it is not reasonable and practicable to hold an inquiry and thereafter, to proceed to pass orders. In the instant case, real issue reflected in the order is about the genuineness of the caste certificate. It is not understood as to why it was not reasonable and practicable to hold regular a inquiry in respect of such a charge. The evidence, according to the respondents, was very much available, as they had obtained some verification report from the Tehsildar.
(3.) SUCH issues have been raised time and again and, therefore, the decision in the case of Yadunath Singh (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly covers the case in view of the ratio as expressed in paras 5 and 6 of the said decision. Accordingly, since the impugned order is not in conformity with the 1991 Rules, the same is unsustainable. Not only this, the State Government realising this ongoing problem has issued a G.O. dated 13.4.2010 reiterating the said stand which is gainfully reproduced hereunder : JUDGEMENT_835_ADJ5_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_835_ADJ5_2011Image2.jpg The writ petition is therefore partly allowed. The order dated 23.10.2007 is quashed. However, quashing of the aforesaid order would not amount to automatic reinstatement of the petitioner and it shall be open to the respondent-authority to proceed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under the 1991 Rules, as per terms and conditions, as the authority may choose to decide. The respondent shall conclude the inquiry as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of production of certificate copy of this order before the disciplinary authority.;