SUDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Madhusmita Bora, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ajay Siwach, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

(2.) The appellant was recruited as Constable to the Haryana Police Service on 31.07.1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 11.07.1992. At the relevant time, he was posted in the Executive Clerical Branch at Gurgaon. On the basis of a complaint said to have been lodged by one Japanese national, Mr. Kenichi Tanaka, an investigation was carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Police and on that basis, the services of the appellant were terminated by resorting to the provisions of Art. 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, dispensing with the inquiry. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal before the disciplinary authority, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the disciplinary appellate authority which was also dismissed. The High Court, by the impugned order, also dismissed the writ petition preferred by him. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no reasons much less sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the impugned order as to why the authority was satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.