Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) Petitioner who is employed as Constable in U.P. P.A.C. Service is aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Commandant, 37th Battalion, P.A.C., Kanpur Nagar, whereby in exercise of powers under Rule 8(2)(B of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 he decided to dispensed with the departmental enquiry and proceeded to dismissed the petitioner from the service for the charges as noticed in the impugned order.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for coming to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, it was practically impossible to hold the departmental enquiry into the charge, as is required under the proviso to Section 8(2)(B) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. He submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with the statutory rules and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in Ram Das Yadav v. Sena Nayak, 45th Battalion, P.A.C., Contingent Konkrajhar, Assam and others, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1775 as well as that reported in Dusht Daman Tyagi v. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad and others, (2008) 1 UPLBEC 19 .;