- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. In this bunch of writ petition, petitioners had been performing and discharging duties as constable. On 1-7-2006 Station House Officer, Sri R. P. Sishadiya on Dasana Crossing, District Ghaziabad arrested the petitioners while they were illegally extracting money while they were posted at Mobile Van No U. P. 14- S7955. For this act of the petitioners First Information Report was lodged being Case Crime No. 162 of 2006 Under Section 384, IPC read with Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioners were sent to jail and thereafter they were placed under suspension on 1-7-2006. Senior Superintendent of Police on 18-7-2006 has mentioned that he examined entire matter and comments which has been received by the Superintendent of Police (RA) dated 18-7-2006 and recommendation has been made that petitioners have been found prima facie guilty and were hot fit to be retained on the post. In this background entire matter has been examined by him and conclusion has been drawn that continuance of petitioners in police force is not appropriate as conduct of the petitioners is based on corruption as such it would not be reasonable practicably possible to hold inquiry and in the interest of the State inquiry would not be held and in exercise of power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 dismissed the services of the petitioners is being dispensed with.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed in each one of the case much stress has been laid on the fact that action which has been taken is on the basis of report which was submitted and rightful decision has been taken warranting no interference by this Court. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in each one of the case and therein it has been contended that there was no occasion to exercise and invoke the power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and that too without recording any reasons as to why it was not reasonably, practicable to hold inquiry in to the alleged misconduct. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal.
(3.) SRI Vijay Gautam and SRI S. P. S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case without recording any finding that inquiry into the matter is practically not feasible, the authority concerned has passed totally unsustainable order of dismissal, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri P. K. Pandey countered the said submission by contending that impugned order clearly gives reasons for dispensing with the service of the petitioner as such no interference be made.;