Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mangala Prasad Rai for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) Since pleading are complete, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(3.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 20.4.2008 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar in exercise of power under proviso to Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred "1991 Rules") without holding enquiry on the ground that to keep the Petitioner continue in the disciplined force would not be proper in public interest since in the preliminary enquiry he has been found indulged in a heinous offence of murder etc. It is contended that in order to dispense with the departmental enquiry, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record his reason as to why the enquiry is not reasonably practicable but no such finding has not been recorded, hence the impugned order is illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Yadu Nath Singh v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3376,Jahir Singh Yadav v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3391 and Man Chandra Singh Chauhan v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3661.;