TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.D. Saunders, the learned coun­sel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner is a constable and his services was dispensed with, without holding a fullfledged inquiry, by using the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It tran­spires that the petitioner had brought the accused to the Civil Court for his appearance in the Court and during the course of the day, the accused made a request that he wanted to ease himself and, at that moment of time, it is alleged that the accused snatched the rope and escaped on a motorcycle which was waiting for him. The petitioner's services has been dispensed with by an order dated 16.5.2006 by invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry because the petitioner could influence the witnesses. In my opinion, this is an escape route adopted by the authorities by taking an easy way out from not holding an enquiry. The petitioner is only a Constable and is not holding such a powerful position where he could influence the witnesses. The services of the petitioner had been terminated under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 8(2)(b) reads as under: "8. (2)(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 authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry."
(3.) THE language of the aforesaid rule is similar to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In U'nion of'India and another v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, and the Supreme Court held: "The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold" the, inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311.... "Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability, which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation." ".....The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of as­sessment to be made by the disciplinary authority." ".....A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplin­ary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail.";