- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER-Subhas Chandra Yadav, while posted as a Constable of Civil Police at Po lice Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 24-4-2008 by the Senior Superinten dent of Police, Lucknow without holding any enquiry in exercise of power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Ap peal) Rules, 1991 read with Clause (b) of the Second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution of India without affording any op portunity of hearing inter alia on the charges which are grave and heinous in nature for which FIR was lodged and on the basis of the FIR, a case crime No. 107 of 2008 under Sec tions 452/354/323/504/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at police station Alambagh, Lucknow. Brief facts of the case are that the peti tioner while posted in the aforesaid police sta tion as Constable was residing as a tenant along with his family in the house of one Sri Ajit Rajput in Mohalla Bara Barha, police sta tion Alambagh,. Lucknow and on 22-4-2008, while Sri Yogendra Sharma, a Sub- Inspector of Police posted in district Bareilly along with his wife and daughter went to visit to his brother-in-law, namely, Himanshu Pathak, who was also residing in the aforesaid house, at about 1.30 a.m., the petitioner came to Himanshu Pathak's residence in an intoxi cated stage and entered his room and started misbehaving with the wife and daughter of the Sri Yogendra Sharma and on being pre vented, the petitioner is alleged to have as saulted and abused Sri Yogendra Sharma and as such, Sri Yogendra Sharma lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for commission of the above miscon duct. On the basis of the said allegations alone and without any further material, the oppo site parties had arrived that the petitioner could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threaten ing and other means and as such, in his opin ion there seems to be no need for departmen tal inquiry and accordingly, dismissed the pe titioner from services by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has pre ferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that no enquiry of any sort as mentioned in the impugned order was ever conducted in order even to find out whether there was an iota of truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant being a Sub-Inspector, he had some grudge against the petitioner on account of his brother-in-law and taking advantage of his position as a superior police officer, he in connivance with his brother-in-law concocted the entire story only to somehow force the petitioner to vacate the premises which he was occupying along with Himanshu Pathak. As far as the reason as signed in the impugned order that no person would come forward to give any evidence against the petitioner, he has submitted that the complainant against the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner is only a Constable occupying the lowest post in the police department and as such, the aforesaid reason is not only absolutely flimsy in nature but is a figment of imagination on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Po lice, Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that according to Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Rule 8 (2) (b) of the 1991 Rules gives him the power to dismiss a police officer without conducting any enquiry. In that event also, the impugned order would be rendered illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that as neither Rule 8 (2) (b) of Rules 1991 nor any other provi sion of the said Rules empowers any author ity to dismiss a police officer without con ducting any enquiry.;