Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC). He has challenged his dismissal order dated 14.05.2011 passed by the fourth respondent, appellate order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the third respondent and the revisional order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the second respondent.
(2.) The essential facts of the case are; the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in PAC in the year 2006. A first information report was lodged against him on 30.05.2010 under Sections 302/201 IPC which was registered as Case Crime No. 371 of 2010 in Police Station Shikohabad, district Firozabad. He was arrested on 30.05.2010 and sent to jail. He was placed under suspension. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was instituted in the matter and on the basis of preliminary enquiry the disciplinary authority took a decision to invoke Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules, 1991 ). A copy of the dismissal order is on the record as annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated that in the criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has wrongly invoked the Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules, 1991. He further urged that the condition precedents for invoking Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules, 1991 are: (i) there must exist a situation which renders holding any enquiry not reasonably practicable; (ii) the disciplinary authority must record, in writing, its reasons in support of his satisfaction.;