Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gulrez Khan learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shree Prakash Singh learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-10-2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which he has rejected the representation of the petitioner to be reinstated in the police force and the consequential order which the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of dismissal dated 28-5-1990 passed by the respondent No. 3. THIS is the original order by which the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner removing him from the service of the State. The next prayer, which the petitioner made, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and was posted at Gurgaon and an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. in case crime No. 740 of 1989, which was registered against the petitioner on 18-10-1989. The investigation was conducted against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was issued against him. The trial had proceeded before the Sessions Court in S.T. No. 10 of 1990. The trial Court passed an order on 30-3-1990 and the petitioner was held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced 8 years R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 2000/-each in respect of both the offences.
(3.) AS soon as the order of conviction was passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28-5-1990 by the Commandant 28 Battalion P.A.C. Etawah. The order of dismissal dated 28-5- 1990 is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition and it records in para 3 that pursuant to the provisions of Rule 55 and 55-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Regulation 493 of U.P. Police Regulations read with Article 311 (2) (a) of the Constitution and in view of the Government Order dated 12-10-1979, it is reasonably appropriate to dismiss the services of the petitioner. The extract of relevant provision of 493 (c) of the U.P. Police Regulations is quoted below: "493(c). If the accused has been judicially acquitted or discharged, and the period for filing an appeal has elapsed and/or no appeal has been filed, the Superintendent of Police must at once reinstate him if he has been suspended; but should the findings of the Court not be inconsistent with the view that the accused has been guilty of negligence in, or unfitness for, the discharge, of his duty within the meaning of Section 7 of the Police Act, the Superintendent of Police may refer the matter to the Deputy Inspector General and ask for permission to try the accused departmentally for such negligence or unfitness.";