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 & 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 Vs. 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 terrorised and threatened the concerned party as well as witnesses of the criminal case whereby the investigation is going on.
(3.) ALL this would show that the charge against the appellant herein is that in a particular criminal case he is terrorising 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 Rule 8 (1) and 8 (2).;