- (1.) The Petitioner has been dismissed from service in exercise of power under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as" 1991 Rules") vide order dated 8.6.2008 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura impugned in this writ petition on the ground that no regular departmental inquiry is practicable since there is no occasion for Petitioner to produce any evidence and the charge against him stands already proved on the basis of medical test and there is no requirement to add anything in the inquiry.
(2.) The understanding of competent authority for exercising power under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of 1991 Rules, in my view, is really pitiable. Whether the delinquent employee would be able to produce any defence or not cannot be fore-judged by the disciplinary authority but it is the matter to be seen in the regular inquiry. The question as to when departmental inquiry may not be reasonably practicable is not connected whether the employee would be able to produce any evidence in defence or not and also it cannot depend on ex parte finding recorded by authorities concerned on his own that the charge has been proved. This means that the delinquent employee is punished on the basis of charge deemed proved against him without holding any inquiry against him and complying with the constitutional provision provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Time and again this Court repeatedly has noticed similar kind of illegalities and irregularities committed by police officers in exercise of power under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) and this Court finds that this power is virtually being misused by the authorities without understanding its correct perspective. Dozens of judgments recently have been given by this Court concerning only with the police department where similar orders have been passed under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of 1991 Rule but still such cases are coming in a large number. It appears that police officials who are responsible for exercising this power are either not being apprised of the correct understanding of aforesaid provision or the same is being exercised for the reasons other than bona fide. Some of such decisions I may refer hereat only as a handy illustration are, Yadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 9 ADJ 86; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 6 ADJ 657; Jahir Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 6 ADJ 605; Subhas Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P., 2009 3 AllLJ 414; Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and Ors.,2009 2 ADJ 6; Ram Sanehi Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61271 of 2006, decided on 5.10.2009; and Ravi Dutt Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56979 of 2006, decided on 17.2.2009.
(3.) The purpose of proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) is not to find out whether the delinquent employee has a weak defence but applies to cases where the inquiry is not reasonably practicable and some of the illustrations of such type have been explained in detail by the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985 3 SCC 398. The judgment was given almost more than two and half decades back but yet the police authorities are not inclined to apply the correct law and are proceeding wholly erroneous and in a casual fashion.;