SATYENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Constable in Civil Police. He has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.7.1993, whereby he has been dismissed from service. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Constable in Civil Police. He was placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him under section 365 I.P.C. On 31.7.1993 the respondent No. 2 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur has dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the "Rules, 1991").

(2.) Initially, when the writ petition was filed, on 7.10.1993 one month's time was granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. Thereafter on 3.1.2012 eight weeks and no more time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed as yet nor there is any application for extension of time. This petition is pending for about last 20 years. State functionaries have preferred not to file counter-affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel states that information was sent to the authorities but he has not received any instruction.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Senior Superintendent of Police has mentioned that there are serious charges against the petitioner and it is not possible to hold the disciplinary proceeding against him and, as such, by invoking his powers under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules, 1991 he has dismissed the petitioner from service.