- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his dismissal order dated 25.7.2007 whereby he has been dismissed from service in terms of Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2004 as a constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary. He completed his one year training during the period 2005-06 and after completion of his training, he was posted at Fatehpur. While he was posted in Mirzapur, on 25.7.2007 the Commandant, 12th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Fatehpur dismissed him in terms of the proviso (b) of Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit. In paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was selected on the post of Constable and he has submitted a forged certificate in regard to his three years working in U.P. Home Guard Department. Thus, on the basis of the forged certificate, he has got benefit of relaxation of age. It is the further stand of the respondents that in the inquiry, it was found that the petitioner has worked only one year and he was not entitled for the maximum age relaxation on the basis of his working certificate of U.P. Home Guard Department and as such the Rule 8(2)(b) has been invoked. No other ground has been mentioned in the counter affidavit for holding the inquiry. I have heard Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Sri Khare has submitted that no notice or opportunity has been given to him before passing the said order and from the counter affidavit, it is clear that some inquiry was conducted behind his back and as such he ought to have been given opportunity if any inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Sri Khare has further urged that Rule 8(2)(b) enjoins the Disciplinary Authority to record the reason in writing that why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no reason at all has been recorded in the impugned order. He further stated that since criminal case was pending and he expected that the said criminal case shall be concluded within a reasonable time and as such there was some delay in filing the writ petition. Mr. Khare has further submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority is without jurisdiction as he was posted at Mirzapur and the Commandant, Mirzapur was competent authority to pass the order. However, the order has been passed by the Commandant Fatehpur and as such the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgements of this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Chandrika Prasad, 2006(1) ESC 374; Yadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9)ADJ 1986; and Single Bench Judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 76110 of 2011, Girijesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 5471 of 2011, Girijesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Transport Department. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has used the forged certificate as such the disciplinary authority has rightly invoked Rule 8(2)(b) in this case. He has invited attention of the Court towards paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. He has further submitted that in this case, there was no need to comply the principles of natural justice as he has secured his employment by furnishing a forged document and if that document had not been filed by him he would not have got the age relaxation and in such a case the disciplinary authority has rightly dispensed with his services in terms of Rule 8(2)(b) of the aforesaid Rules, 1991.;