Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri J.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/18.4.2008 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura dismissing him from service in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules) without holding a regular departmental inquiry on the allegation that he obtained appointment by making forgery in his date of birth.
(2.) FACTS in short giving rise to the dispute are as under : Petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Constable in U.P. Police in the year 1994. At the time of appointment, he submitted documents which recorded his date of birth as 1.8.1975. In the year 2007, while he was posted at Etah, some complaint was made that he has obtained appointment by making forgery and manipulation in his date of birth and the same was 1.8.1971. Senior Superintendent of Police entrusted Circle Officer, Aliganj, Etah to make inquiry into the complaint. Circle Officer, Aliganj conducted the inquiry into the complaint and after recording the statement of witnesses and after verifying the certificate of the educational qualification submitted by the petitioner from the college, submitted a report that charges are not established against the petitioner and on the basis of the said report, no further action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from District Etah to District Mahtura. Again an identical complaint was made against him and a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Chhata. He also submitted a report that the preliminary inquiry for the same charges have earlier been conducted and the same were not found to be proved. The copies of the two inquiry reports have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 5 to the writ petition. However, thereafter without any notice or opportunity or holding any disciplinary proceedings, Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura passed an order dated 17/ 18.4.2008 exercising powers conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that since the petitioner was involved in forging the document, as such, it was not practicable to hold any inquiry. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the alleged charges on which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, were found to be false in preliminary inquiry, there was no justification to pass the impugned order without any notice or opportunity of hearing or without drawing any disciplinary proceedings. It has further been contended that the impugned order has been passed without recording any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry into the alleged charges. Referring to the provision of Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules, it has been urged that it was incumbent upon the authorities to record reasons for invoking the power conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules. It has also been submitted that mere mentioning the fact that since the petitioner was involved in manipulating and forging documents, as such, it was not practicable to hold the inquiry, do not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules as a reason for dispensing the departmental inquiry. In reply, learned Standing Counsel referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, has submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police got another inquiry conducted through Shri Alok Kumar Chaturvedi, Circle Officer, Mathura, who submitted a report dated 8.4.2008, wherein it was found that the petitioner has changed his date of birth from 1.8.1971 to 1.8.1975 by making forgery and also filed a forged certificate of having passed intermediate. It has also been contended that date of birth mentioned by the petitioner was got verified and inquired from the concerned institutions and it was reported that his date of birth was 1.8.1971 and not 1.8.1975 and, thus, after being satisfied that petitioner has sought appointment on forged and fabricated documents, passed the impugned order.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Question involved in this case for adjudication is as to whether the impugned order of dismissal fulfils the conditions precedent prescribed in Rule 8 for exercise of the said power. Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules reads as under. "8. (2) (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry." The language of the aforesaid Rules, is almost similar to 2nd proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Interpreting the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 has observed as under. "The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold" the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311.... "....Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation." ;