Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2006, passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner was constable and was posted at Jaunpur when his services was terminated by the impugned order. The services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that in a murder case of Yadunandan Uppadhyaya s/o Ram Nohar Upadhyaya police station Shahganj, Jaunpur, Case Crime No. 546 of 2006 under Sections 302,. 307 and 323, I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner. Sri Siddhartha Verma was appointed as Enquiry Officer and in the preliminary enquiry report dated 2.8.2006, it was found that the petitioner was involved in 21 criminal cases apart from the Case Crime No. 546 of 2006. Detail of such cases are mentioned in the termination order. On the basis of the said enquiry report, termination from the service of the petitioner has been recommended. The said recommendation has been accepted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi and accordingly, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Having regard to the facts of the case and number of criminal cases pending against the petitioner, it was held that it would not be proper to keep such person in police department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner has been terminated without holding any enquiry and without recording any finding that enquiry is not possible, as required under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and therefore, the termination order is wholly unjustified. He further submitted that since the order was patently illegal, therefore, alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 11 of the U. P. Government Servant (Dispute and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is no bar for the maintainability of the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel submitted that present is the case where on an enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was involved in 22 criminal cases, therefore, it is not the case where termination order has been passed without making any enquiry. He submitted that the petitioner has not disputed about the criminal cases lodged against him included in the impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 11 of the U. P. Government Servant (Dispute and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which the petitioner has not availed and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order.;