Sunil Ambwani and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandra Kumar Rai for the petitioner- appellants. Sri J.K Tiwari, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.
(2.) IN this intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the petitioner-appellants have challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.4.2009 by which he declined to interfere with the dismissal order passed against the petitioner-appellants without holding departmental enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short the Rules of 1991). The facts leading to the writ petition are that the petitioner-appellants serving as constables in civil police at Varanasi, were caught red handed, illegally extracting money from Truck No. 61 H - 8292 at about 1.50 A.M. in the night of 13/14.1.2009. A sum of Rs. 55 was recovered CP. 541 Daya Shankar and a sum of Rs. 60/- was recorded from C.P.2286 Radhey Shyam Rai, at the time they were apprehended. A criminal case under Section 7 (13) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is pending against the petitioner-appellants in which the appellants were granted bail. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by his order dated 14.1.2009, dismissed them under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. He observed that the petitioners have been caught red handed in accepting bribe, causing strong probability of indiscipline amongst other members of the police force. The consequences of such kind of corrupt actions on the police department and the society can be serious. On one hand, the image of the police department will suffer serious damage, and on the other hand, the society will loose their faith in the police department.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another v. Ram Vinai Sinha in SLP (Civil) No. 11757 of 2007 cited by the counsel for the petitioner in which it was held that since a stigma was caused to the employee while discharging his services, an opportunity of hearing should have been given. Learned Single Judge also considered the judgment in Pushpendra Singh (CP. 2187) and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) UPLBEC (Sum) 96, in which a Division Bench of this Court has held that dismissal order under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 on the ground that the police constable was caught accepting bribe red handed cannot be sustained and that the petition cannot be thrown away on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.;