RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner, through this writ petition, has assailed the order dated 13.12.2005 and the subsequent order dated 13.2.2006 by which he was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat as per the provisions contained in sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as a Constable in Police Station-Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. A First Information Report was lodged at Police Station-Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar on 1.10.2004 regarding an event of missing of three boys, namely, Arshad, Asif and Meharban from their native place. The said boys could not be traced out. However, the petitioner and seven other Constables including a Head Constable were suspended by the Superintendent of Police order dated 6.3.2005 and a First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner and seven other Police Personnel in Criminal Case No. 65 of 2005, under Sections 342/364/330/201/120-B and 34, I.P.C. The petitioner along with others approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the criminal proceedings and this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to stay the arrest of all the Police Personnel vide order dated 26.6.2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 9.11.2005, this Hon'ble Court had stayed the proceedings of Case No. 6761 of 2005 initiated on the strength of the charge-sheet pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. On 22.11.2005, the petitioner was transferred from Police Line, Gautam Buddh Nagar to Baghpat and thus he came under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat. He was reinstated in service vide order dated 13.12.2005 and in the said reinstatement order it was clearly indicated that the regular departmental enquiry in contemplation of which the petitioner was put under suspension on 6.3.2005 shall continue to remain pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the same day, immediately after re-instating the petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2005 and indicating herein that the departmental enquiry shall continue to be held, the petitioner has been dismissed from services. The order of removal or dismissal from service was also passed on the same date, that is, on 13.12.-2005 by the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat under the purported exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of dismissal is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and punitive in nature as the order was passed during pendency of a departmental enquiry which was neither closed nor withdrawn. Since the criminal case was not proceeding, as the proceedings were stayed by this Hon'ble Court, there was no reason to throw the petitioner out of employment without the accusation levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. The Superintendent of Police has not recorded his subjective satisfaction disclosing any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry.;