LOP PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/18.4.2008 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura dismissing him from service in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules) without holding a regular departmental inquiry on the allegation that he obtained appointment by making forgery in his date of birth.

(2.) FACTS in short giving rise to the dispute are as under : Petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Constable in U.P. Police in the year 1994. At the time of appointment, he submitted documents which recorded his date of birth as 1.8.1975. In the year 2007, while he was posted at Etah, some complaint was made that he has obtained appointment by making forgery and manipulation in his date of birth and the same was 1.8.1971. Senior Superintendent of Police entrusted Circle Officer, Aliganj, Etah to make inquiry into the complaint. Circle Officer, Aliganj conducted the inquiry into the complaint and after recording the statement of witnesses and after verifying the certificate of the educational qualification submitted by the petitioner from the college, submitted a report that charges are not established against the petitioner and on the basis of the said report, no further action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from District Etah to District Mahtura. Again an identical complaint was made against him and a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Chhata. He also submitted a report that the preliminary inquiry for the same charges have earlier been conducted and the same were not found to be proved. The copies of the two inquiry reports have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 5 to the writ petition. However, thereafter without any notice or opportunity or holding any disciplinary proceedings, Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura passed an order dated 17/ 18.4.2008 exercising powers conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that since the petitioner was involved in forging the document, as such, it was not practicable to hold any inquiry.

(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Question involved in this case for adjudication is as to whether the impugned order of dismissal fulfils the conditions precedent prescribed in Rule 8 for exercise of the said power. Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules reads as under.