- (1.) THIS appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 1. 10. 2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47241 of 2007.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. It appears that the petitioner-appellants, being aggrieved by the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra dated 12th September, 2007, dismiss ing them from service, preferred the aforesaid writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the impugned order is bad, illegal and arbitrary because it has been passed under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (in short the Rules), without re cording any reason to dispense with regular departmental proceeding and, there fore, it cannot sustain. The Hon'ble Single Judge, however, having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appel lants have efficacious statutory alternative remedy under the Rules itself and thus they can avail the same. Appellants are constables in U. P. Police and at the relevant time were posted in Police outpost Balkeshwar, Police Station New Agra, District Agra. However, on 10. 9. 2007 at 11. 30 p. m. Shri Anil Kumar, Incharge Police Out Post while patrolling alongwith the appellants arrested a suspect Raju @ Rakesh from cremation ground and some objectionable incriminating articles were recovered from his possession and was produced before the Magistrate. Thereafter, his mother-in-law made a complaint on 12. 9. 2007 alleging therein that the petitioner alongwith other police personnel took Rs. 5000/- as illegal gratifica tion yet he was arrested and challaned in a false case and was subsequently released by the Magistrate. Consequently, an FIR was lodged and on the same day i. e. 12. 9. 2007, they were dismissed from service by the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that since the impugned order of dismissal did not contain any reason to dispense with the regular departmental proceeding and thus, the same being in violation of the statutory provisions, the writ petition could not have been thrown only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He further submits that under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, the punishment of dismissal from service without holding regular proceeding, can only be inflicted where the authority empowered, records reasons indicating the difficulty on account of which it is not practicable to hold such enquiry. It is contended that in the instant case, the Senior Superintendent of Police, without recording any reason for not holding regular departmental pro ceeding, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy when the order apparently is in violation of the statutory provisions whereunder recording reasons is mandatory. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-re spondents opposed the writ petition. However, he could not show us any reason in the impugned order to dispense with the regular departmental proceeding be fore giving punishment of dismissal to the appellants under Clause- (b) of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made on both sides and also pe rused the record. The core question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the impugned order of the Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 2) dated 12. 9. 2007 is in accordance with law or is in disregard of the prescription of law. To appreciate the contention made before us, it is necessary first to have a look of the provisions contained in Rule 8, which provides as under: "8. Dismissal and removal.- (1) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank ex cept after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules: Provided that this rule shall not apply - (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authorily in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. ";