- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The im pugned order herein has been passed under Rule 8 (2) of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which is as follows: 1. Dismissal and removal.- (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from ser vice by an authority subordinate to the appoint ing authority. (2) No police Officer shall be dismissed removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as con templated 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 had led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (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 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.
(2.) THE complain of the petitioner is that the impugned order indicates that the requirement of the said rule has not been satisfied. In the facts available it appears that only clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 is applicable here. THE said clause categorically provides that if pie authority who is empowered to dismiss Vemove a person is satisfied for some lesson to be recorded in that authority in writting a police officer may be dismissed or removed without proper inquiry and dis ciplinary proceeding as contemplated by the Rules. Learned Standing Counsel ap pearing for the respondents relies on the facts stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit and it is stated that under the said circumstances the impugned order had been passed. After considering the respective contentions of the parties I am of the opinion that the requirement of law in this regard is clear and the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement. Ap parently nothing has been recorded show ing the satisfaction of the authority con cerned for not holding the inquiry. No circumstance has been shown for the pur pose of contending that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such in quiry. Law in this connection has been made clear in the cases of Brijendra Singh Yadav v. State of U. P, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 638 ; Balveer Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 316 : 1996 (1) LBESR 78 (All) and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1991 SC 385. On behalf of the respondents on record has been produced for the purpose of jus tifying the impugned order or for showing compliance of requirement of law.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the im pugned order cannot stand. The writ peti tion is, therefore, allowed and the im pugned order dated 30-4-1998 is here by quashed. I make it clear that this order will not prevent the respondents from taking up any appropriate proceeding in respect of petitioner in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;