Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the U.P. Police Force in the year 1987. On 22.8.1997 a first information report under Sections 147, 148, 307, 412 I.P.C. And, under Section 25 of the Arms Act was lodged against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner was arrested, and while in jail, he was suspended and, thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from the service by an order dated 23.12.1997, after dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 8 [2] [b] of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank [Punishment and Appeal ] Rules 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1991]. The authority while dismissing the services of the petitioner held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.
(2.) The petitioner challenged the order of the dismissal in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36535 of 1998. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Sessions Trial No.480 of 1997 was decided by a judgement dated 11.8.2000 in which the petitioner was acquitted. Based on the aforesaid acquittal, the petitioner's writ petition was disposed of by a judgement dated 21.3.2002 directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, who would consider the matter in the light of the judgement passed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 20.3.2002. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed not only for the quashing of the order of suspension, the order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal, but also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(3.) It transpires that the co-accused Shiv Kumar Sharma, who was also involved in the same crime was suspended and remained under suspension till the disposal of the criminal case. It further transpires that based on the acquittal, the co-accused Shiv Kumar Sharma was reinstated in service.;