- (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia dismissing him from service in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules) without holding a regular departmental enquiry on the allegation that has obtained appointment by making forgery in his date of birth.
(3.) Facts, in short, giving rise to the dispute are as under: Petitioner was selected and appointment on the post of Constable in Police Department on 26.6.2005. At the time of appointment, he submitted his High School Certificate issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate which recorded his date of birth as 1.6.1986. The Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow vide confidential letter dated 26.9.2007 issued directions for reviewing the entire selection made in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 on some alleged irregularities being detected in holding the said selection. In compliance of the aforesaid direction entire selection with respect to the recruits appointed in the said years and physical verification, educational qualification, date of birth, health certificate and caste certificate etc. were reexamined and reverified. On reverification from the Regional Office, Varanasi of U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate it was revealed that actual date of birth of petitioner was 10.6.1087. This alleged act of the petitioner was taken as furnishing a forged certificate at the time of recruitment. The Superintendent of Police found that in such a situation, it was not in public interest to allow the petitioner to continue in service. He further observed in the order that the petitioner had filled-in the form in his own writing and has also undertaken that any information given in the application form is incorrect then his selection may be cancelled and whatever legal action can be taken would be taken for which he has no objection. An affidavit was also filed by him to the effect that if any information was found incorrect after his selection, the same may be cancelled. The Superintendent of Police in his wisdom thought that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry and, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the 1991 Rules dismissed the petitioner from service without giving him any opportunity of hearing and without holding any enquiry.;