GULABDHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Siddarth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1998. However, he has been dismissed from service after nine years of service under the provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). The reasons given for dismissal of the petitioner is that on verification it has been found that the caste certificate on the basis whereof he had obtained employment was a forged caste certificate.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Yadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (9) ADJ 86 (DB), contended that there is no satisfaction recorded by the authorities as to why it was not reasonable or practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid allegation of caste certificate being forged and, therefore, in the absence of any satisfaction having been recorded the order impugned is unsustainable. It is further submitted that even otherwise the reason given for not holding the inquiry is preposterous and the order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) SUCH issues have been raised time and again and, therefore, the decision in the case of Yadunath Singh (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly covers the case in view of the ratio as expressed in paras 5 and 6 of the said decision. Accordingly, since the impugned order is not in conformity with the 1991 Rules, the same is unsustainable. Not only this, the State Government realising this ongoing problem has issued a G.O. dated 13.4.2010 reiterating the said stand which is gainfully reproduced hereunder : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_835_ADJ5_2011Image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_835_ADJ5_2011Image2.jpg</IMG>