NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against two orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. Respondent No. 2 passed order dated 28th August, 2005. whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. This order has been passed dispensing with any formal inquiry as it is in the mind-set of the disciplinary authority, it was not reasonable or practicable to hold such inquiry. Therefore, it is admitted position no inquiry was held and, as such, no opportunity of hearing had been given before the impugned order was passed. When Rule permits and such Rule is not challenged before me, it has to be seen whether the Rule has been applied in the fact and circumstances of this case or not. The second order dated 12th December, 2005 has been passed by respondent No. 1, appellate authority, who had affirmed it.

(2.) It appears from the two orders that the petitioner is found to have been absent when he was deputed for discharging duty as a Security personnel attached to a judicial officer. On inquiry, his absence was to be found and it was further found that while absenting himself from duty, he attended the court cases pending against him under various sections of I.P.C.

(3.) Ordinarily, subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority is not examined by the Court in exercise of power of judicial review. But, when the question of rationality and reasonableness with regard to the applicability of Rule is raised, the Court can certainly examine into these aspects to scrutinize decision dispensing with the inquiry.