- (1.) The services of the appellant who was a Police Constable, had been dispensed with by taking aid of Rule 8(2) b of the U.P Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991(The Rules). This order was assailed by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 24794 of 2008. The dismissal of the petition has led to the filing of the Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reason has been given in the impugned order for dispensing with the enquiry whichis a condition contemplated under Rule 8(2) (b) of the Rules. " 8. Dismissal and removal: (1) ......... (2) No Police Officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules: Provided that this rule shall not apply- (a) ................ (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. (c) .............."
(2.) We have perused the impugned order and find that the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant has substance. The order states that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry in one sentence merely by refering to the punishments that were earlier awarded to the writ petitioner. It was absolutely necessary to indicate in the order the reasons as to why it was not practicably possible to hold the enquiry.
(3.) The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition has, however, observed that detailed reasons have been given in the impugned order. As noticed above, not even a single reason has been stated in the impugned order as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry.;