Sunil Ambwani - (1.) -By these connected writ petitions, petitioners, serving as Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables, and Constables at Police Station 'Shivali', district, Kanpur Dehat, have challenged orders dated 15.10.2001, by which the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur ; and orders dated 22.10.2001 by which Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, have dismissed them from service in exercise of powers under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (S.I.C. Rules, 1991) read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, after recording that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry. Initially all petitioners were placed under suspension on 12.10.2001, on the date when an unfortunate incident took place within the premises of police station. On a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, dated October 14, 2001, Sri Bhola Nath Deobanshi, Incharge, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Shivali (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1361 of 2001) Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Suresh Babu Yadav (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36174 of 2001), Constable 636, Ram Krishna Dubey (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44476 of 2001) and Constable 671, Civil Police, Veerpal Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36966 of 2001) were dismissed from service on 15.10.2001 whereas the rest of the petitioners, namely, Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Pahup Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36172 of 2001), Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Satya Prakash Yadav (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36170 of 2001), Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Jai Singh Parihar (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36178 of 2001), Virendra Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37111 of 2001), Head Constable, Civil Police, Satya Prakash Pandey (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36198 of 2001) and Constable 523, Civil Police, Rakesh Kumar (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36958 of 2001) were dismissed on 22.10.2001. The orders of dismissal in respect of Sub-Inspectors have been passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, authorised to dismiss them under Rule 8 (3) of Rules, 1991, and the orders in respect of Head Constables and Constables have been passed by Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, authorised under the same position in the Rules, 1991.
(2.) THE incident, as narrated in the dismissal orders is as below : "On 12.10.2001, the Incharge Inspector of Police, Shivali was at Agra on official duty. Sub-Inspector Sri Bhola Nath Deo Banshi was incharge of the police station. On that day, accused Vikas Dubey resident of village Bikaroo, P. S. Shivali came to police station and made a complaint of an attack upon him by bombs and bullets hurled on his vehicle. On this complaint incharge. Sub-Inspector Deobanshi proceeded to arrest opposite party Sri Lallan Bajpai, Ex-Chairman, along with an accomplice of complainant without registering an F.I.R. At the same time, the supporters of Vikas Dubey had assembled in large numbers in the town, and were causing agitation after blocking traffic. Instead of deploying police force to maintain peace, Sub-Inspector Deobanshi tried to arrest the Chairman, but did not succeed in bringing him to the police station. In the meantime upon receiving information about the traffic jam by agitating crowds in the town of Shivali, Sri Santosh Shukla the Chairman, 'Shram Samvida Board'. U. P. reached police station where accused Sri Vikas Dubey, present at the police station, and who was inimical with Sri Santosh Shukla, committed ghastly crime of killing Sri Santosh Shukla by shooting him along with his accomplice in presence of police station incharge, Sub-Inspector, Bhola Nath Deobanshi, and seriously injured driver of the deceased and also caused serious injuries to one Sri Ajay Mishra, resident of Saket Nagar who later on died. Due to police inaction, accused Vikas Dubey managed to escape along with accomplice after the incident. THE matter was reported at police station, Shivali on 12.10.2001 in Case Crime No. 143 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 506, I.P.C. and 7th Criminal Law Amendment Act. On the same day, i.e., 12.10.2001, all the petitioners were suspended. On 14.10.2001, the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, submitted a confidential report No. S.T.-C-2/2001 to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur reporting the incident. After narrating the incident as above, it was reported that Sub-Inspector, Bhola Nath Deobanshi was arrested on 14.10.2001 and has been sent to jail. THE report, which was placed before the Court, after it was summoned by order dated 8.8.2001, further states that accused Vikas Dubey is a notorious person and that three dozens crimes have been registered against him at Kanpur Nagar and Dehat. In case opposite party, Lallan Bajpai had come to police station along with Sub-Inspector Bhola Nath Deobanshi, he would have definitely been killed. On 12.10.2001 the supporters of Vikas Dubey were engaged in breaking law and order by resorting to violence and had blocked the traffic. It was his duty as police station incharge to normalize law and order situation. Apart from this, the fact that in his presence, a person of the status of Minister of State was killed by accused Vikas Dubey, in the premises of police station, and thereafter succeeded in escaping without any action taken by the police, for which sufficient opportunity was available, is a proof of the fact that this Sub-Inspector is intimate with and is in collusion with him and that this fact is also borne out from the report of Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, dated 14.10.2001." The report further proceeded to conclude that this act of Sub-Inspector, Bhola Nath Deobanshi has tarnished the image of police department, and has also taken away public confidence in police establishment, because if the police personnel entered into intimacy and conspiracy with criminals, the public interest and the interest of the nation will be at threat, and will have serious repercussions on the department and society. Since accused Vikas Dubey is a notorious person and has created terror in the region, it will not be possible to obtain any concrete evidence in the departmental proceedings, on account of his intimacy with Sub-Inspector, Bhola Nath Deobanshi and thus the proceedings under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991 were recommended against him. The Additional Superin-tendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, submitted almost the similar report against the other police personnel. He added that at the time when Vikas Dubey and his accomplice succeeded in running away from the police station, the police personnel mentioned in the report, namely, Sub-Inspector, Pahup Singh, Satya Prakash Yadav, Jai Singh Parihar, Virendra Singh, Head Constable Satya Prakash Pandey, Constable Rakesh Kumar and Suresh Babu Yadav, were present and did not take any action for maintaining peace and to apprehend the criminals. This act proves negligence and cowardice in performance of duties and that their inaction and negligence prima facie proved, and that this act has tarnished the image of police department and that general public has lost confidence in police. He also recommended action against the aforesaid police personnels under Rule 8 (2) (b) of Rules, 1991.
(3.) RULE 8 of the RULEs, 1991 is quoted as below : "8. Dismissal and removal : (1) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority ; (2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper enquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules : Provided that this rule shall not apply : (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (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 enquiry ; or (c) Where the Govern-ment is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. (3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends, dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or any Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned for orders. (4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negli-gently allowing a per-son in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dis-missal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor pun-ishment. (b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise." I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate for petitioners and Sri Hanuman Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for respondents.;