LOK PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/18.04.2008 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.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the alleged charges on which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, were found to be false in preliminary inquiry, there was no justification to pass the impugned order without any notice or opportunity of hearing or without drawing any disciplinary proceedings. It has further been contended that the impugned order has been passed without recording any reason as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry into the alleged charges. Referring to the provision of Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules, it has been urged that it was incumbent upon the authorities to record reasons for invoking the power conferred by Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules. It has also been submitted that mere mentioning the fact that since the petitioner was involved in manipulating and forging documents, as such, it was not practicable to hold the inquiry, do not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8 (2) (b) of 1991 Rules as a reason for dispensing the departmental inquiry.