V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition, Petitioner is questioning the validity of the order of dismissal from service dated 21.03.2009 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police Kanpur Nagar in exercise of authority vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 and order of its affirmance in Appeal dated 26.02.2010 passed by Inspector General of Police Kanpur Range Kanpur.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Petitioner has been member of disciplined Force and has been performing and discharging duties as Constable. Allegations mentioned against the Petitioner is that on 23.11.2008 he left from the Police Station on two days sanctioned casual leave and was likely to return on duty on 25.11.2008 but Petitioner failed to return to resume his duty and was as such unauthorizedly absent. During this period, a First Information Report has been lodged being Case Crime No. 313 of 2008 under Sections 389 IPC and Section 3/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Raipurwa District Kanpur and an enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Inspector Incharge of Police Station Juhi and enquiry report revealed that accused Vijay and Virappan and his accomplish Shekhu told that Constable 72 CP Gopal Ji Dwivedi and Constable Rajesh Rana used to come his house and demanded money and also threatened that if you failed to give money you will be booked in chain snatching case. Based on the said inquiry report Petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.11.2008 in contemplation of the inquiry proceeding. Thereafter report has been submitted that Petitioner is continuously unauthorizedly absent without any information. Thereafter impugned order in question has been passed directing dispensation of service of the Petitioner and same has been affirmed in appeal. Thereafter present writ petition is being taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties after pleadings interse parties have been exchanged.
(3.) SRI Vijay Gautam Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case there was no occasion to invoke and exercise authority under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 without there being any foundation and basis and here mechanically it has been mentioned that inquiry into the matter is neither reasonable nor practicably possible, as such authority in question has been colourably exercised, consequently writ petition, deserves to be allowed.;