B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) 1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 7.7.2005 passed by the respondent No. 4, order dated 2.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 7.7.2005 and the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the petitioner's revision against the orders dated 7.7.2005 and 2.12.2005. While on deputation in U.P. Power Corporation the petitioner, who was initially appointed as constable in civil police, was placed under suspension by an order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Pravartan), U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow on the ground of his being arrested and sent to jail in a criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 77 of 2005 under Section 364-A, I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut. Thereafter without holding any enquiry and without issuing any show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 7.7.2005 passed by the respondent No. 4 under the provisions of Rule 8 (2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, on the ground of his involvement in Criminal Case No. 77 of 2005 under Section 364-A, I.P.C. Since the petitioner was dismissed from service only on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case and no reason was given in the order of dismissal for proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal from service under Rule 20 of the Rules, before the respondent No. 3 which was dismissed by him by his order dated 2.12.2005. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 7.7.2005 and 2.12.2005 passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 by filing a revision before the respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed by him by order dated 20.4.2006.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of dismissal is wholly arbitrary, illegal and punitive in nature. Since the petitioner has not yet been convicted in the criminal case and the charges levelled against him are yet to be proved, there was no reasons to throw the petitioner out of employment. The respondent No. 4 has not recorded his subjective satisfaction disclosing any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that failure of the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority to examine the illegality committed by the respondent No. 4 in dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules on the ground of his involvement in criminal case and without assigning any reasons and to redeem the same as rendered the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 totally unsustainable.;