SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26.6.2007 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) whereby he has been dismissed from service without holding any enquiry in exercise of powers under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1991") and the order dated 01.02.2010 whereby appeal of the petitioner filed against aforesaid order has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on one hand the disciplinary authority has recorded his own finding about the alleged misconduct and unsuitability of the petitioner to continue in service and on the other hand without giving any reasons as to why the departmental enquiry is not reasonably practicable has simply used the word that "the enquiry is no more reasonably practicable" and accordingly has passed the impugned order.
(3.) IN my view it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority to hold departmental enquiry in accordance with the statutory provision and he could not have declined opportunity to the petitioner exercising the power prescribed under proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 as a pretext as that would not only be in violation of principles of natural justice but also in the teeth of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.;